Research and analysis

Worker and employer perspectives of illegal working

Published 1 October 2026

Executive summary

Introduction and methodology

The Home Office commissioned this research to better understand non-compliance with applicable Right to Work (RTW) checking requirements. It comprised 2 strands:

• research with platform-based workers ^{[footnote 1]} who work within the gig economy – examining motivations for engaging in platform work, day-to-day experiences, non-compliant behaviours related to RTW, and the role of informal networks in recruitment and working practices
• research with businesses in perceived high-risk sectors, legal firms and professional representative bodies – focusing on the nature and causes of RTW non-compliance, experiences of enforcement and sanctions, characteristics associated with a higher risk of non-compliance, and views on preventative and deterrent measures

The Home Office has previously conducted research with businesses using self-employed workers, including platforms (Home Office, 2025a), and a survey of employers’ awareness of and compliance with RTW checking requirements. This research explored the realities of the job from the worker’s perspective and looked into areas that heighten risks of illegal working, such as account sharing. These interviews with businesses support additional understanding of factors that can drive non-compliance among businesses.

The research comprised 24 depth interviews with individuals undertaking platform-based work, as well as 19 interviews with businesses in high-risk sectors, 2 interviews with legal firms and one with a professional representative body.

Key findings

Drivers for and process of signing up for platform-based work

Flexibility was a key motivation for platform working, including the ability to choose hours and work across multiple platforms. Ease and speed of signing up were also key considerations.

For those who account shared, platform work was often seen as a necessity due to difficulties securing other types of work which require proof of RTW on application. In addition, some of those who shared an account were doing other work to supplement their income, and the flexibility of platform work accommodated this.

Most often, platform workers found out about this type of work through friends, family and community contacts. These networks were also key to facilitating account sharing.

Fewer than half of platform workers used or shared another person’s account to get work, a practice which may facilitate work by unauthorised workers. This was much more common among those who were not authorised to work in the UK. Some platform workers currently not authorised to work used an old account which they reported setting up when they had permission to work in the past.

No platform workers with their own accounts recalled having been asked to re-upload or re-verify these documents after they initially signed up, despite some working on a platform for several years. This indicates that individuals who have held accounts for longer periods may not have been subject to the strengthened document checks and verification measures introduced more recently to mitigate account sharing.

Working practices and verification checks on digital platforms

Platform workers with their own account were more likely to benefit from flexibility in organising work compared to those who were account sharing, as it is not possible to have an account actively in use on more than one device concurrently. Those who shared accounts were sometimes notified of available work by the account owner rather than through the digital platform.

The frequency and method of payment differed between platforms. The account owner typically set their own bank account as the nominated bank account, either because they worked on the platform themselves or because the individual they account shared with did not have their own bank account. Those who account shared, therefore, did not receive payment directly, and a few reported that the main account holder would take commission on their earnings.

Platform workers reported that the main methods used to verify their account were sending profile photos while working or via facial recognition, and that these checks had become more sophisticated in recent years. Platform workers unauthorised to work who were account sharing started shifts by logging in with the account details they had access to, though some reported that regular facial recognition checks sometimes prevented them working in this way.

In some sectors, platform workers perceived account sharing as posing a relatively low risk of detection. However, unauthorised platform workers still took other steps to avoid detection, such as avoiding places where delivery riders congregate that may draw attention for employer immigration checks, or areas known for enforcement activity.

Intentions to continue in work through digital platforms

Platform workers unauthorised to work commonly described uncertainty about their future in the UK. Many expected to continue platform work until they:

• gained lawful permission to work (for example, through a visa)
• secured other informal work they perceived as less visible
• returned to their home country

Some explored visa sponsorship routes, but these were seen as difficult or inaccessible because they were not applicable to their main type of work. In addition, the process of securing employer sponsorship was complicated. For others unauthorised to work, financial necessity meant they anticipated remaining in platform work for the time being. They felt other informal employment carried a greater risk of exploitation, unfair pay and detection.

Those authorised to work in the UK were more likely to continue platform work for its flexibility or because it could be combined with other roles. Some were actively seeking employment they thought would be more fulfilling or stable financially and career-wise. They generally planned to continue in platform work during their search for work. Others remained undecided about their future plans but expected to continue platform work in the short term due to the convenience and autonomy it afforded.

Compliance among businesses and the effect of enforcement

Businesses’ views around compliance were also discussed, mostly based on their perceptions of businesses in their area and sector. Non‑compliance was most commonly viewed by businesses in perceived high-risk sectors as unintentional and due to practical constraints, rather than planned and deliberate avoidance of RTW checking requirements. A consistent theme was the perception that smaller businesses in these sectors, with less formal recruitment and onboarding processes, were seen as more exposed to error.

Key drivers of non-compliance identified by businesses included:

• operational pressures and time constraints: particularly in sectors such as construction, where tight project deadlines create pressure to recruit quickly, leading to more informal and short-notice hiring practices
• informal and relationship-based recruitment practices: especially in sectors like beauty, where hiring decisions were often made by owner-managers and checks could be applied inconsistently, sometimes alongside cost-saving considerations
• wider patterns of low regulatory compliance: in sectors such as car washing, non-compliance with RTW requirements was often seen as part of broader issues, including price competition, high business turnover, and weaker adherence to tax and other regulations

Among the businesses in perceived high-risk sectors interviewed, all explained that the risk of being fined was a strong deterrent against any non-compliance. However, several felt that larger businesses were more likely to be able to absorb fines. Businesses in high-risk sectors suggested that fines would work best when they were visible and enforced, and when combined with education and guidance.

Awareness of and barriers to completing employer immigration checks, and support needs, among businesses

Businesses in high-risk sectors generally understood that employer immigration checks are necessary to prevent illegal working and exploitation, but confidence in conducting them varied significantly. Those without specialised HR departments were much less likely to be confident.

Small and micro firms in particular often struggled to interpret guidance, relying on ad hoc external sources and showing notable knowledge gaps – particularly around the requirement to check documentation for all workers, including British nationals.

Even among those businesses aiming to comply, anxiety about making mistakes was common due to perceived system complexity, unclear terminology and uncertainty about what constituted sufficient checks.

Businesses without dedicated HR support were especially vulnerable to inadvertent non-compliance, as they often relied on informal recruitment practices. This created risks that were both structural and behavioural:

• inconsistent or selective checking, particularly where processes were not formalised
• a greater likelihood of relying on trust-based decisions, where checks might be overlooked for individuals known personally to the employer

1. Introduction and methodology

1.1 Introduction

The Home Office commissioned this research to better understand risks relating to illegal working and non-compliance with Right to Work (RTW) checking requirements.

Legislation setting out employer responsibilities to prevent illegal working has been in place since 1997. Since 2008, employers have been required to carry out prescribed Right to Work checks prior to employing someone via the Right to Work Scheme (UK Government, 2025). These checks are carried out on all employees regardless of a person’s nationality, including on British citizens.

Right to work can be demonstrated via proof of British or Irish citizenship, or of an appropriate visa. Checks must be completed before work begins and must comply with Home Office guidance on using manual, online or digital identity verification routes. Options include:

• an online check (Home Office service) where individuals with digital proof of immigration status provide a share code to the employer
• a manual document check, where the employer examines original documents (for example, a passport) in the individual’s presence – they must confirm the documents are genuine and belong to the person they are hiring
• a Digital Verification Service (DVS) provider, where British and Irish passport holders are checked using digital identity verification

For all methods, employers must retain evidence of the check and make sure documents are genuine and unchanged, belong to the individual, the individual has permission to do the specific type of work offered, and comply with any time limits or work restrictions (for example, limited working hours for student visa holders). If permission to work is time‑limited, employers must carry out follow‑up checks before it expires.

While individuals need to have permission to work in the UK, at present only employees require checks on immigration status. Planned legislative changes are expected to come into force during 2026 to extend RTW checking requirements to arrangements where businesses contract workers to provide services under their company name, such as agency workers or workers in the gig economy.

1.1.1 Research context and scope

This research builds upon existing research into employer immigration checks and the gig economy (Home Office, 2025a). This existing research was conducted with digital platforms to understand the employment models they use, the onboarding checks they carry out and the potential risks for illegal working. It also considered possible enablers of non-compliant behaviour. Findings highlighted that the gig economy worker model poses risks for illegal working because businesses are not required to check the RTW status of workers. This research builds on this evidence by adding the perspectives of digital platform workers, both with and without the right to work in the UK, and explores their experiences, including of non-compliance.

This research complements previous research, including the review of external evidence of the compliant environment (Home Office, 2023), which aimed to understand compliant environment measures and their effectiveness, as well as research gaps. It also complements research around employers’ awareness of and compliance with RTW checks (Home Office, 2025b). This included a representative survey of UK businesses to assess their understanding and implementation of RTW checks. The survey highlighted risks of inadvertent non-compliance due to lack of awareness and misunderstandings around checks, and identified other factors impacting compliance, including employer size. This report re-affirms and builds on this existing evidence base, seeking to better understand the possible drivers of non-compliance at a business and sector level, and how these relate to business practices.

This research comprised 2 strands: research with platform-based workers^{[footnote 2]}, who work within the gig economy; and research with businesses in perceived high-risk sectors, legal firms and professional representative bodies. This research aimed to understand how and why RTW non-compliance occurs in platform-based work and high-risk sectors. The specific aims for each of the 2 strands are outlined below.

The first strand of the research, with platform workers, aimed to explore:

• workers’ motivations and experiences for working via digital platforms
• non‑compliant behaviours around RTW compliance (either their own or others’)
• the role of informal networks in recruitment and day‑to‑day work practices (for example, account sharing, and informal organisation of work to maximise earnings)

The second strand of this research, which is informed by interviews with businesses in sectors seen as high-risk, legal firms and representative bodies, aimed to explore:

• understanding of the nature of and awareness of RTW checking requirements
• perceptions of non-compliance with RTW checking requirements in high-risk sectors
• challenges complying with RTW legislation
• perceptions of enforcement and events following enforcement action

1.2 Methodology

1.2.1 Platform-based worker strand

Depth interviews with platform workers undertaking digital platform-based work were conducted between December 2025 and mid-February 2026.

Interviews were completed with 24 platform workers, 11 of whom believed they were unauthorised and 13 who believed they were authorised to work in the UK.

Table 1: Interviews completed with platform workers across sectors of the gig economy

Sector[footnote 3]	Number of participants
Private hire transport – driving customers via bookings made on a digital app	4
Food delivery services (including groceries or household items) – delivering products via bicycle, motorcycle or car	10
Courier service delivery – delivering packages by car or van	8
Other	2
Total	24

1.2.2 Businesses in high-risk sectors, legal firms and representative bodies strand

We conducted 19 interviews with businesses in high-risk sectors – 11 construction businesses, 6 beauty sector businesses, and 2 car washes, with a total of 19 interviews. We also conducted interviews with 2 legal firms and one professional representative body with experience of supporting businesses with employer immigration checks. These interviews took place in March 2026.

1.2.3 Interpreting the report

Findings in this report are based on a qualitative depth interviews approach. This approach allowed for long-form discussions, extensive probing and rapport-building to elicit detailed, nuanced responses. Findings should therefore be treated as indicative rather than representative of the wider population of platform-based workers and businesses in high-risk sectors, legal firms and representative bodies.

These findings are based on information shared at participants’ discretion and on their perceptions of compliance and non-compliance. Given the sensitive nature of the research, interviewees may have self-censored to limit disclosure. In addition, a few platform workers were unclear about their status; for example, some students said they could work up to 20 hours a week without recognising that this did not apply to self-employment. All participating businesses stated they were compliant with RTW requirements, which may shape the perspectives provided and limit direct insight into non-compliant behaviour.

Throughout the report, ‘platform workers’ includes both those who believed they were authorised to work and those who did not. During screening, this was determined by whether participants reported having the right to work in the UK. Where findings relate specifically to one group, this is made clear through distinction between ‘authorised’ and ‘unauthorised’ workers based on participants’ perceptions of their status. Relevant chapters also distinguish between those who did and did not account share. Under UK law, self-employed workers may substitute someone else to carry out work, although individual platforms may restrict or discourage this.

2. Platform workers – drivers for and process of signing up for platform-based work

Key findings:

Flexibility was a key motivation for platform working, including the ability to choose hours and work across multiple platforms. Ease and speed of signing up were also key considerations. For those who account shared, platform work was often considered to be a necessity due to difficulties securing other types of work which require proof of RTW on application. In addition, some of those who shared an account were doing other work to supplement their income, and the flexibility of platform work accommodated this.

---

Less than half of platform workers interviewed used another person’s account to get work (known as account sharing). This was much more common among those not authorised to work. Some platform workers not authorised to work used an old account which they reported setting up when they were previously authorised to work.

---

Most often, platform workers found out about this type of work through friends, family and community contacts. These networks were key to facilitating account sharing. Some also heard about platform working through social media or via previous experience with the platform as a customer.

---

Those with their own account found the process quick and straightforward, while others were delayed by document verification issues. Most of those who account shared did not have first-hand experience of the sign-up process.

---

None of the platform workers with their own accounts recalled having been asked to re-upload or re-verify these documents after they initially signed up, despite some working on a platform for several years. This suggests that those who have maintained accounts over a longer period may not have encountered the enhanced document checks and verifications used by platforms more recently.

This chapter explores what motivated platform workers to sign up to digital platforms, how they first became aware of this type of work, and their reasons for working across multiple platforms. It also covers their experiences of signing up for accounts and the verification processes required.

Platform-based work refers to work through digital platforms (apps) where individuals are self-employed or workers and work on a short-term, task-by-task basis, receiving payment through the platform. This research included platform workers who believed they were authorised to work in the UK and those who did not. This distinction, though, is not always clear. For example, at present, organisations are not responsible for conducting employer immigration checks on platform workers^{[footnote 4]}. Also, individuals may have limitations to their RTW in the UK; for example, individuals with student visas are restricted in the number of hours they can work per week. Other workers unauthorised to work could also have secured work via old accounts on digital platforms, which they set up when they were previously authorised to work.

Account sharing, where workers use an account set up in another’s name, may also be used by some to support illegal working. At present, under UK law, self-employed workers are allowed to substitute themselves with someone else to carry out work, although individual platforms may discourage substitution. Among those authorised to work, only a minority used another person’s account to get work by sharing an account. Among those not authorised to work, the majority shared an account.

Given these circumstances, it is not possible to identify current illegal versus legal working among those interviewed with complete confidence. Therefore, in this report, findings are reported by:

• whether they are authorised to work in the UK
• whether platform workers account shared

Where possible, these groups were used to analyse the data and identify any patterns of differences between groups.

2.1 Motivations for working through digital platforms

2.1.1 Key motivations

Flexibility was the most significant motivator for platform workers in signing up to digital platforms. All platform workers were attracted by the autonomy of choosing their own work schedules, reflecting previous research which found independence and flexibility were 2 aspects of gig economy work with which workers were most satisfied, and which digital platforms felt they offered workers by operating self-employment models (BEIS, 2018; Home Office, 2025a). This flexibility allowed many workers to work when they wanted to tailor their hours around other work and personal commitments. Some platform workers supplemented their income using other informal or ad hoc work. Others could combine work across multiple digital platforms. This occurred predominantly among those who were authorised to work.

“I think it was very flexible for me. I could pick up deliveries [on my] own schedule… which worked well for me personally because it’s not all [the] time [that] I’m available to do delivery.”

Food delivery service, Authorised to work

In practice, the extent to which platform workers could work flexibly varied by whether they shared an account belonging to another platform worker. This is because those who account shared needed to accommodate the account owner’s working hours and working pattern preferences. Experiences of account sharing are explored in more detail in Chapter 3.

Platform workers who undertook informal work in addition to their platform-based work described doing ad hoc and self-employed work on a cash-in-hand basis. Though not exclusive to this group, this was more common among those who shared an account, and typically included informal care, cleaning or catering work secured through word of mouth or via social media. For those who account shared, this typically included a single other type of self-employed work which they undertook relatively consistently alongside platform work. For example, one participant had a small catering business which secured work through community connections. In a small number of cases, those who account shared undertook a range of short-term, task-based work opportunities in parallel with platform-based work. No platform workers described combining platform work with full-time contracted employment.

The ease and speed of signing up for an account meant that platform-based work was seen as more accessible than other forms of work. When discussing the accessibility of platform work, platform workers largely focused on how it is readily available, and that they can sign up virtually and work from any location. Digital sign-up also removed delays due to lengthier application stages and interview processes required by most other types of work, allowing workers to start earning money quickly.

Many platform workers joined digital platforms out of necessity, often because they had recently lost their job or struggled to find other types of employment. In some cases, platform-based work was used to earn money while continuing to apply for other work. Some platform workers found it difficult to find other forms of work or stable employment due to competition within the current job market.

A few platform workers felt that platform-based work was more active and varied than other potential roles. A few also mentioned that the work was less physically and mentally demanding than other work they had done previously, such as care work, and so saw it as a relatively ‘easy’ way to earn money.

Among those unauthorised to work, digital platform work was often seen as safer than other types of work, as it did not require an in-person interview or contact with an employer. Other participants who currently or previously were unauthorised to work stressed the lack of other work options for those without formal work authorisation.

“I applied to lots of places. All people are saying [is] ‘sorry, we need your current visa. Once your visa will come, you can come back.’ So, at that time, I need to survive. So, I did these self-employed jobs.”

Food delivery services, Authorised to work

A small number of platform workers previously were authorised to work but had lost it when their visas had expired. They described losing access to work they had done previously, such as hospitality work.

Some platform workers without authorisation to work also felt that digital platform work was safer than other forms of work that commonly paid cash-in-hand because it involved very little direct or extended contact with employers or customers. Approaches to avoiding detection are explored further in Chapter 3.

Some platform workers without authorisation to work mentioned trying to secure cash-in-hand work but said this type of work was difficult to find, as these opportunities were less likely to be advertised on online job search platforms. Others felt the cash-in-hand opportunities available to them were exploitative, with underpayment for work being a common concern.

“I really wanted cash in hand, but it wasn’t coming. We’re not seeing any available. And the only one that I finally got, the wage was so low. So, I saw it more like an exploitation, paying £7 per hour for a job on a minimum wage of £12.21 per hour.”

Food delivery service, Not authorised to work

2.1.2 Motivations for working across multiple platforms or sectors

Many platform workers, predominantly those who were allowed to work, did so across multiple platforms. In some cases, these were within the same sector to help them maximise earnings. Those who worked on food delivery service platforms described how pay per delivery was impacted by the demand and supply of drivers, meaning switching platforms sometimes meant they were paid more for the same tasks. Distance between available deliveries was also a consideration, to minimise time and fuel costs.

“I’ll have the apps open, multiple of them open and… based on some of the distance between me and the delivery, I’ll go for that or the amount of money I’m going to get for that delivery… if it’s usually like in the same direction as the other deliveries, I’ll try and get that done because it saves me time and also fuel doing it in the same location.”

Courier delivery service, Authorised to work

Others worked across multiple sectors to benefit from different ways of working. For example, working for courier delivery platforms allowed them to pre-book ‘shifts’ to complete deliveries within a given window (such as Wednesday morning), while other platforms (most commonly food delivery platforms) provided more ad hoc work, on a task-by-task basis. Working across digital platforms in multiple sectors therefore allowed platform workers a degree of structure and certainty around their work and income for the week. For some, this structure allowed the opportunity to take on additional work when it suited them.

Some platform workers without permission to work felt it was safest for them to work on only one platform. One platform worker interviewed, who was not authorised to work, worked on multiple platforms. This individual had one account still functional from when they were authorised to work and had started account sharing on another digital platform to support their earnings, expecting to eventually be unable to use their own account. Platform workers who were not authorised to work felt working on one platform allowed them to maintain a low profile and avoid detection. Some expressed interest in signing up for additional digital platforms in the future when they hoped to obtain permission to work.

“Just for my own safety, and I think my friends made me understand the fact that I have no right to work here. And I don’t want to just get penalised for something … Maybe if I have the right to work, I might need to combine 2 to 3 [platform] jobs just to fetch me more money.”

Courier service delivery, Not authorised to work

2.2 Workers’ introductions to platform work

Informal networks, such as friends, family and community groups, played a significant role in introducing platform workers to platform work. These networks often included platform workers who already had experience working through digital platforms. In these instances, they could explain how digital platforms worked, the best platforms to use and how to sign up for them. In the cases of those who shared someone else’s account, this sign-up process was completed by the account owner, and platform workers were often unfamiliar with the details of this process.

In other cases, platform workers first heard about platform-based work through adverts on social media. In a few instances, online adverts, with messaging that highlighted the demand for drivers and the speed and convenience of the digital sign-up process, prompted some participants to explore digital platform work. In a minority of cases, participants became aware of platform-based work as a customer or through seeing delivery drivers in their area.

A small number of platform workers who were not authorised to work carried out online research and used online forums to find out about the risks and practicalities of platform work while not having the RTW. This highlights an understanding of the potential dangers of undertaking platform-based work unauthorised. How this informs working practices is explored in more detail in Chapter 3.

“I personally did research. I browsed [online]… what it entails, what are the ups and downs of this… how it works, the payments, the risk involved… I went as [far] as asking what happens if I’m caught [without the RTW] or something. Of course, this thing is deportation at the end of the day… [but] since that was the only thing available, I just told myself, I’ll be careful.”

Food delivery services, Not authorised to work

2.3 Sign-up experiences

Platform workers’ experiences of signing up to platforms varied by whether they shared an account. Platforms workers who were account holders could provide detailed information about their sign-up experiences, as they had signed up for an account themselves using their own details and documents. Those who shared an account, most of whom were not authorised to work, did not have first-hand experience with the sign-up process. Findings around sign-up experiences are presented accordingly.

2.3.1 Platform workers who did not account share

Experiences of signing up for accounts varied. Some platform workers found the process quick and straightforward, while others experienced delays with the document verification process, which could take weeks.

“The initials of setting up your account and filling in your profile, they were very simple, very straightforward. When it came down to uploading your documents, getting them verified, first of all, the uploading of the documents wasn’t smooth at all … that took a few weeks to get that done”

Courier service delivery, Authorised to work

Platform workers were required to provide a range of documents to verify their identity, RTW status and other details relevant to their work. The platform workers interviewed reported that, in terms of identification documents, a UK passport was required if they were a UK national^{[footnote 5]}. A visa share code was required if they were not a UK or Irish national. All platform workers were required to upload profile images to verify that the documents were their own. This is consistent with previous Home Office research, which found that gig economy businesses typically conducted some form of employer immigration checks during onboarding, despite there being no legal requirement to do so (Home Office, 2025a).

None of the platform workers interviewed recalled having been asked to re-upload or re-verify these documents after they initially signed up, despite some working on a platform for several years. Some were aware that platforms may request account holders to update or re-verify their documents but had not experienced this directly. This suggests that those who have maintained accounts over a longer period may not have encountered the enhanced document checks and verifications used by platforms more recently.

This lack of re-verification led to platform workers whose visa had expired still having access to accounts which they had set up when they were authorised to work in a handful of cases. In these instances, they had not needed to re-verify their identity and RTW status or had not had their RTW checked when originally signing up.

One platform worker who came to the UK on a student visa and worked via a courier delivery service platform said they were notified by their platform that they were working too many hours. After receiving multiple warnings for persistently working over the hours permitted by their visa, their account was blocked. This ultimately led to them sharing an account with a friend to continue working on the platform.

Other personal details that were required upon sign-up included:

• personal contact details including name, email address, phone number
• bank details for payment; platform workers noted that the name on the account had to match identification documents provided
• proof of address
• a CV or proof of relevant work experience (in a small number of cases)
• eye tests were mentioned by a few platform workers in private hire transport and courier service roles

Many also had to share vehicle details and documentation, if the work involved driving, including a driving licence, vehicle information and proof of vehicle insurance. A few people working in private hire and taxi-driver roles also mentioned needing to share their private hire vehicle (PHV) licence. Obtaining this involved additional document checks and verification, sometimes including knowledge tests, medical examinations and enhanced criminal records checks. Among those authorised to work, there was a perception that these additional checking requirements made account sharing less feasible within these sectors and therefore harder to access for those unauthorised to work.

Some platform workers also mentioned having to provide proof of other types of insurance, such as business insurance or insurance for transporting food. Background checks were also mentioned by some platform workers in the food and courier delivery service sectors, which they assumed were to check their criminal history.

Among those who did not account share, there was generally a high level of awareness that some individuals working through digital platforms did so by account sharing. Those authorised to work did not mention sharing their account with anyone else, and there were varied views on how easy or feasible account sharing was within platform-based work. Some platform workers did not think it would be possible due to the account verification protocols they had experienced. This was a more commonly held view among those in the private hire transport sector.

“There’s security in the apps … actually require identity verification and face verification as well. So, the bank account name and everything is there. So, I don’t think that will be possible because there are security measures in place.”

Food delivery services, Authorised to work

Awareness of account sharing and the perception it was easy to do were higher among those who had been using their account for a longer period of time (at least a year and a half). This may be because they have had a longer period and more opportunities for interacting with other platform workers, and hearing details of how people manage to account share.

2.3.2 Platform workers who account shared

Almost all of the platform workers interviewed, who were unauthorised to work, shared an account with another platform worker who was authorised to work. Being unauthorised to work meant these platform workers were unable to sign up for their own account, excluding a small number who had previously set up an account when they were authorised to work. For this group, informal networks such as friends, family and roommates were key to facilitating entry into platform work via account sharing. There were mixed experiences in terms of who initially suggested account sharing (the platform worker interviewed themselves or their account holder contact). In most instances of account sharing, the friend, family member or roommate had signed up to the account themselves and allowed the platform worker to use it to access work.

“She [their sister] just got registered in her own name and I did the stuff. She got my details, her bank details, everything and handed it over to me.”

Food delivery services, Not authorised to work

In one instance, the platform worker completed the sign-up process themselves using their friend’s details and documents, with their permission. Some platform workers were aware of other platform workers paying for log-in details to an account. This was organised either through word of mouth or on community WhatsApp groups or Reddit. More detail on the experiences and practicalities of account sharing is covered in Chapter 3.

3. Platform workers – working practices and verification checks

Key findings:

Platform workers with their own account were more likely to benefit from the flexibility of organising work compared to those who were account sharing (it is not possible to have an account active on more than one device concurrently).

---

Those who shared accounts were sometimes notified of available work by the account owner rather than through the digital platform. In some cases, the account holder and account sharer would agree when each was working.

---

The frequency and method of payment differed between platforms. The account owner typically set their own bank account as the nominated bank account, either because they worked on the platform themselves or because the individual they account shared with did not have their own bank account. Those who account shared therefore did not receive payment directly, and a few reported that the main account holder would take commission on their earnings.

---

Platform workers reported that the main methods used to verify their account were sending profile photos while working or via facial recognition, and that these checks had become more sophisticated in recent years. These types of checks appeared to be more common on larger or more established digital platforms.

---

Platform workers who were account sharing started shifts by logging in with the account details they had access to. In cases where facial recognition was required, they needed to get this from the account holder before starting work.

---

Platform workers unauthorised to work took other steps to avoid detection; for example, avoiding places where delivery riders congregate and may draw attention for employer immigration checks, or areas known for enforcement activity.

---

Some platform workers perceived platform working by sharing someone else’s account as carrying a relatively low risk of detection. They also felt that any legal action would be taken against the account holder, rather than the account sharer.

This chapter explores how platform workers use the platforms, what their patterns of work are, as well as how they are paid for this work. It also covers the verification checks platform workers are required to complete when working, including the steps they take to avoid detection. In addition, this chapter explores how these experiences differ for those who were and were not authorised to work, and those who do and do not share an account.

3.1 Working patterns

Working patterns varied widely depending on the availability of work, personal circumstances, including whether platform workers account shared, as well as their personal preferences.

As highlighted in Chapter 2, platform workers were drawn to this type of work as they could choose their own work schedules and tailor their hours around other commitments. Some platform workers worked upwards of 40 hours per week and kept fairly consistent shift patterns. They could often take on additional work over and above these typical patterns to supplement income if they wanted to. Some of those who shared an account were doing other self-employed work to supplement their income, in addition to their platform-based work. As a result, they would select their hours around these other work commitments.

Other platform workers reported they worked flexibly based on demand, such as at a time of day or week when there were lots of tasks available (for example, when online food orders were more frequent). This meant that they could work in a way which optimised their earnings.

“I don’t know how many hours in a week, but normally when it’s busy like [at the] weekend I do like 6 to 7 hours […] and only like 5 to 4 hours when other days [are] quiet, but weekend is quite busy.”

Food delivery services, Authorised to work

For those working in food delivery or courier services, it was also common to organise work around non-peak traffic hours to minimise their own costs. Nonetheless, some workers chose to organise their work around times of day or the week when they preferred to work. This was more typical of those who did not account share, who tended to have more autonomy over the work they undertook, compared to those who were account sharing and had to accommodate the account owner’s preferences.

3.2 Finding work via digital platforms

Most digital platforms discussed in the interviews allowed ad hoc work. In these cases, workers described a straightforward process of opening the app, seeing what work was available in their local area, and selecting tasks to undertake on a case-by-case basis. Workers could often pre-set location preferences so they could pick up work in areas they knew would continue to have work available throughout a shift.

“So, if any delivery comes, then [app], they will send you the customer’s address. And if you accept that, you have to go there and pick up the food, and then you will get to find the address for customer. It’s all in your hands. If you open the app, you’re ready to work.”

Food delivery services, Authorised to work

Platform workers authorised to work who undertook food delivery work reported that they would often base themselves near one or several restaurants or takeaways where they knew there would be a high volume of work to undertake on a given ‘shift’.

A small number of digital platforms, such as some courier delivery apps, could not be used as flexibly and dynamically. One platform worker working on a courier delivery platform noted workers were required to pre-book time slots for carrying out work with that platform, and they had to collect parcels from warehouse facilities. They felt this had implications for the ease of those unauthorised to work using the platform, as it could make account sharing less feasible due to being visible to staff working at the warehouse.

“I think all platforms are the same, essentially, right? It’s not like there is a consistent everyday requirement … [for a] facial scan or something like that before you [start work] … I’d say [digital platform] is the only one that is different because for that you need to directly go to [their] warehouse to pick up the orders … that’s sort of face-to-face, they know.”

Courier delivery service, Authorised to work

Those with their own account could be more flexible in their approach to organising work. They could select work based on factors such as distance from home, how far they wanted to travel within a shift, and the weather. This was especially the case for those who were authorised to work and did not need to avoid detection, whereas those with their own account but unauthorised to work still found it necessary to work with discretion (steps to avoid detection are explored further later in this chapter). Those with their own account and who were authorised to work were also more comfortable working on multiple platforms, and they were therefore better able to prioritise which work they selected from different platforms according to personal preference, commonly the amount of money they could earn from the task.

“I’ll have the apps open, multiple of them open and… based on some of the distance between me and the delivery, I’ll go for that or the amount of money I’m going to get for that delivery … if it’s usually like in the same direction as the other deliveries, I’ll try and get that done because, it saves me time and also fuel doing it in the same location.”

Courier delivery service, Authorised to work

Platform workers who were account sharing noted that it was not possible to have an account active on more than one device at a time, meaning they could not work concurrently with the account holder. Instead, this group of workers was reliant on being notified of available work by the account owner instead of through the digital platform.

“I don’t log into the app on my own phone … when he gets the delivery, he will just call me on phone just to know if I’m willing to do the delivery. I don’t have the app yet.”

Courier delivery service, Not authorised to work

In some other cases of account sharing, daily use of the account would be shared, for example, with one person working during the day and the other nights, or one working only when the account owner did not want to use the account. In other cases, those account sharing had full access to an account because the account holder had other work, such as a full-time job. This type of arrangement allowed the platform worker sharing someone else’s account to use the account with similar flexibility to those who had their own accounts.

“My friend like he works like as a full-time job he does something else so like in a spare time he does that, so he just gives me the account to basically use.”

Food delivery services, Not authorised to work

3.3 Payment processes

The frequency and method of payment differed between platforms. Some digital platforms paid earnings instantly, while others paid out on a weekly basis. In many cases, platform workers with their own account described being able to build up a “pot” of earnings in the app and then choose to release these funds to their account as and when they wanted to. Others set a schedule for their earnings to be paid into a nominated bank account, usually weekly; some platforms also allowed workers to set monthly payment schedules, but nobody spoken to as part of this research had selected this option.

Those who account shared did not receive payment directly, as the account owner typically set their own bank account as the nominated bank account. This was because they worked on the platform themselves, or because the individual sharing the account did not have their own bank account. The account holder would then pay the account sharer, typically in cash, but sometimes into a bank account (if they had one). At times, the account holder would also take commission, though this was generally decided between the 2 individuals and depended on their relationship.

“He will count the number of times that I made the delivery and then it’s just for him to make the draw, a form of cash for me. I can have my own cash at hand.”

Courier service delivery, Not authorised to work

Workers occasionally said they had to renegotiate payment arrangements with the account owner, which created uncertainty regarding their earnings.

“I pay him fixed rate a month … £30 a month. Although he’s saying he wanted more because he can see how much I’m earning. And yes, some problem there now. But I must have to keep it up because otherwise no possibility of account work.”

Food delivery services, Not authorised to work

In cases where platform workers account shared with a family member, they often also shared their bank account, which meant their earnings were more easily accessible to them.

By contrast, a few of those sharing accounts had most or all of their pay withheld. In one more extreme example, a platform worker received none of their earnings but had accommodation and all other living expenses covered by the family member with whom they lived and account shared. It was not clear in these instances whether the earnings kept by the account owner entailed a like-for-like exchange, or whether workers knew how much they had earnt.

Among those who shared an account, some viewed having to share their earnings as exploitative, while others viewed this as an inevitable result of account sharing. Workers unauthorised to work feared removal from the UK, which exacerbated the sense that sharing their earnings was necessary, as they felt they had no means of protecting their earnings.

3.4 Verification checks process

Some digital platforms require workers to go through verification checks while undertaking work on the platform. These are intended to verify that the individual undertaking work is the person who holds the account and are distinct from identification checks carried out when individuals sign up for an account.

Platform workers reported that the main methods used to verify their account were sending profile photos while working or facial recognition. These are used to ensure the worker matches the profile picture and the photo ID they signed up with. Some workers who used their own account said they had to regularly confirm their identity, with some saying that this was at the start of a shift, while others had not encountered these types of checks.

These types of checks appeared to be more common on larger or more established digital platforms, and platform workers who had worked on these platforms for longer noted verification checks had been phased in or made more sophisticated in recent years. However, for some platforms, older accounts seemed to be subject to less scrutiny than new accounts. This was either due to re-verification not being put in place by the digital platform, or a platform’s technical limitations.

“Before one year and in terms of like in 2024 or 2023, accounts were not demanding selfies. So, it was not difficult. You just have to log in, and you’re allowed to continue to work. But now it’s quite hard because [the apps] are asking for selfies every day.”

Food delivery services, Authorised to work

Profile photos were sometimes also attached to accounts, so customers could check if they matched when platform workers arrived to make deliveries. A couple of platform workers who were sharing an account had reported complaints from customers who alerted the platform that they did not match the picture on the app. The complaints had sometimes resulted in warnings for the account holder but no further action.

A few platform workers noted that other digital platforms carried out verification checks by monitoring driver information, such as the vehicle used. On one platform, workers reported that if a driver was registered as a cyclist but completed the job faster than would be expected on a bike, this flagged that it could be a different person completing the job, and that they had heard of this resulting in a suspension or account cancellation.

“They kind of see how long it takes you to make journeys and if it seems to not match the information they have then they block your account.”

Food delivery services, Authorised to work

3.5 Avoiding detection while working

3.5.1 Platform workers who shared an account and were not authorised to work

Accounts were mostly shared with friends, family or roommates. Workers had to log on to the digital platforms to get work, so workers who account shared started a shift by logging in with the account details they had access to. As described previously, sometimes verification checks included a facial recognition check at the start of the shift and, in these cases, workers account sharing had to acquire this before starting work. Those who had experienced regular facial recognition checks when account sharing reported that it had stopped them working in some cases where they could not get the account holder to log into the account. They would then have to try again or wait until they could get the account holder to validate the account.

Platform workers unauthorised to work, whether they account shared or not, took other steps to avoid detection; for example, avoiding places where delivery riders congregate and may draw attention for employer immigration checks, or areas known for enforcement activity^{[footnote 6]}. They would also work in quieter areas and late at night, keeping helmets on where possible or finding delivery jobs where they could leave packages without any human interaction.

“I’m just so careful where I park where I go, [I’m] trying to be more vigilant … so I guess I don’t go to those places where lots of people are waiting.”

Food delivery services, Authorised to work

Some reported wearing generic clothing to be less noticeable and reduce their recognisability, as well as using generic equipment such as unbranded refrigerated bags for food delivery. Others noted working alone to avoid drawing attention and keeping a low profile more generally.

Where the work required driving, usually courier services, the car used had to be registered to the account holder, meaning workers account sharing could only work when the vehicle was available for them. Alternative forms of transport included using a bike, which was either their own, borrowed or rented.

3.5.2 Perceived risks and consequences

A few platform workers reported they had heard, but not directly experienced, that police had undertaken checks by stopping delivery drivers to check they had the RTW and were using their own account. These platform workers reported hearing about these instances either via peers or the media. In one case, an authorised platform worker reported having to show their ID to an immigration enforcement officer. Another, authorised platform worker, reported a restaurant they worked in being inspected and all staff being required to provide proof of their RTW. In both cases, there was no need for further action.

“They did come and search everybody in the restaurant, so they check it, and when they find that my one is okay, they did not say anything.”

Private hire transport, Authorised to work

Some platform workers perceived platform working as relatively low risk for those unauthorised to work. They felt that the large numbers of platform workers, and having no specified workplace, made detection and enforcement action challenging. Some of those who account shared also felt that any complaints from customers would go to the account holder, which may lead to them denying that the worker had access to the account, but that the worker themselves was not at risk of legal action.

Those who had account shared for longer tended to be more confident and view account sharing as low risk. Some also identified the times of day when they felt most comfortable working, often tending towards less sociable working hours when they expected the risk of detection to be lower.

“I do mostly nights, I work mostly from evenings, anything from 6 to 2am … I just know it’s a more convenient time for me where I’m not as fear of police or anything if the car breaks down or something like that. There’s no fear of anything.”

Other, Not authorised to work

Those authorised to work felt that account sharing on digital platforms was riskier. This was particularly common among those with experience of recent photo ID verification processes (for example, random selfie checks) who thought these would be a good deterrent and could not see a way of workers getting around these processes.

A few platform workers who were not authorised to work and account sharing were worried about the risk of account sharing and being removed from the UK if found working, having heard second or third hand that this could happen. A minority also reported that they had noted an increase in verification checks while using digital platforms, which had led them to account share less frequently.

“I’m still, like, taking a risk but I don’t try to work as much as before because recently, they’ve been doing more checks.”

Food delivery services, Not authorised to work

4. Platform workers – intentions to continue working through digital platforms

Key findings:

Around half of platform workers interviewed reported that they intended to continue working through digital platforms.

---

Among platform workers authorised to work, future plans were influenced principally by work preferences and lifestyle considerations. Some wanted to move into employment they regarded as more fulfilling or stable in terms of career or finances, but continued to use platform working whilst searching for new employment.

---

In contrast, likely future use of digital platforms among those unauthorised to work was shaped by a mix of legal restrictions, financial pressures and uncertainty about immigration outcomes. The high cost and complexity of attempting to regularise their status also influenced continued reliance on platform work.

---

For others unauthorised to work, work decisions were more immediate and centred on financial necessity. Platform work was seen as less prone to exploitation and safer from detection compared with likely alternative work, while also being higher paid.

This chapter explores workers’ plans for continuing, adapting or leaving platform‑based work, highlighting clear differences between those who were and were not authorised to work in the UK.

4.1 Plans to continue working through digital platforms

Around half of platform workers interviewed reported that they intended to continue working through digital platforms, broadly reflecting previous research on gig economy workers which found 41% of workers expected to stay in the sector within the next year and 39% expected to leave it (BEIS, 2018). Reasons varied, but clear differences emerged between platform workers who were and were not authorised to work in the UK.

4.1.1 Platform workers authorised to work

Among authorised platform workers, future plans were influenced principally by work preferences and lifestyle considerations. Many described platform work as something they enjoyed or found convenient, and therefore intended to continue doing, at least in the short term. They valued the ability to combine platform work with a regular job for additional income, reflecting the perceived benefit of maintaining multiple work options.

“If I find a job that is 9 to 5, after 5 I will be free. So why not? I’d do some extra work, I even can do the weekend.”

Food delivery services, Authorised to work

Those looking for work had mixed views on and motivations for continuing with platform work. Some wanted to move into employment they regarded as more fulfilling or stable in terms of career or finances.

“It’s not sustainable, to be honest. It’s in my opinion, it’s a new form of minimum wage work where the companies that are you know, employing people, right, get to basically skew out what protection and benefits come with normal minimum wage work.”

Courier service delivery, Authorised to work

A few platform workers were beginning to explore the wider job market, including one who noted that if they could secure a job, they might reduce or stop platform work altogether.

“I’m trying to get on my feet in the job market. Once I get [a job], I may not work on that [platform] much, if at all.”

Food delivery services, Authorised to work

Some platform workers using digital platforms to generate income while searching for more stable employment reported they had been actively pursuing alternative job opportunities throughout their time working via platforms, but had not yet been successful in securing an offer.

4.1.2 Platform workers not authorised to work

Future use of digital platforms among those unauthorised to work was shaped by a mix of legal restrictions, financial pressures and uncertainty about immigration outcomes; unlike those authorised to work, personal preference had little bearing on their future engagement with platform work. Platform workers unauthorised to work frequently described their future plans as uncertain. Many emphasised that their ability to make longer‑term decisions depended on whether they were eventually granted the right to work in the UK, though they were not necessarily actively pursuing regularisation. Until then, they expected to continue with platform work because it was one of the few viable options available to them.

“I don’t know what the future holds, to be honest … if I have the right work, I think it will give me a chance to make the right selection… I just have to continue with this in the future.”

Courier service delivery, Not authorised to work

The high cost and complexity of attempting to regularise their status also influenced continued reliance on platform work. Some platform workers said they were not pursuing legal routes because the process felt unaffordable or put them at risk of detection by authorities; the time it would take to regularise also dissuaded a few. A small number of platform workers expressed concern about their prospects of regularising their status due to evolving immigration rules, reflecting some limited awareness of proposals such as extending settlement eligibility periods. This increased their apprehension about seeking legal advice or engaging with authorities due to the risk of removal from the UK.

“[There is] lots happening, particularly in immigration presently, the proposal of extending the duration to earn citizenship. So, it’s not something I want to go through. Since I’ve been off the radar for almost 3 years now, I will have to go through legal process, spend lots of money and I’m not ready for that.”

Other, Not authorised to work

“I have asked people questions and sometimes I search for information on social media platforms and I will say it’s just not easy at the moment. I have just spent more than a year in the UK … I need to spend close to 5 years in the UK just for me to apply for this work status.”

Courier service delivery, Not authorised to work

For others, decisions were more immediate and centred on financial necessity. Platform work was seen as less prone to exploitation and safer from detection compared with alternative jobs, while also being higher paid. Alternative employment that platform workers had considered or undertaken included cash-in-hand roles in warehouse sorting, high street takeaways and childcare.

Platform workers not authorised to work also described the emotional and practical burden of working without legal status. Several expressed that although platform work was far from ideal, it felt like a more stable source of income over other roles. This shaped their intention to continue in the absence of a more secure alternative. As one platform worker described, they would consider leaving platform work only if a better paid and equally low‑risk opportunity became available.

“If I see anything that pays higher but with minimal risk, because for now this is the one without any risk for me, I would say.”

Food delivery services, Not authorised to work

Several platform workers unauthorised to work and who account shared described searching for additional or alternative work. As with platform working, their choices were constrained by legal status and the limited range of roles that could be taken without formal documentation. In some cases, they were drawn to other informal jobs due to slightly better pay – though this was not a consistent factor since low or exploitative pay also dissuaded workers from the informal economy in other instances – or to avoid paying fees or a cut of their earnings to the account holders whose account they shared.

“They’re looking for people to do waiting at the weddings, the pay is slightly better and in cash, I would get tips also. I won’t need to pay the commission that I pay to [account holder] now.”

Courier service delivery, Not authorised to work

Others were actively looking for roles that could support applications for sponsored visas, recognising that more secure employment would depend on meeting required criteria. Some felt that employers’ reluctance to sponsor workers reduced their chances of securing the right to work soon, also limiting their employment options beyond platform working.

“Not all employers are happy with an overseas applicant.”

Courier service delivery, Not authorised to work

5. Businesses – compliance and the effect of enforcement

Key findings:

Non‑compliance was most commonly viewed by businesses in perceived high-risk sectors as unintentional and due to practical constraints, rather than planned and deliberate avoidance of regulations. A consistent theme was the perception that smaller businesses in these sectors, with less formal recruitment and onboarding processes, were seen as more exposed to potential errors.

---

Practical reasons for non-compliance included feeling pressured to employ people within a tight timeframe, particularly in the construction sector. Businesses described projects being delivered to tight deadlines, with pressure to fill roles quickly and keep work on schedule. This meant that workers were often recruited informally and at short notice.

---

Non-compliance in the beauty sector was often linked to informal recruitment and owner-manager decision-making, including inconsistent application of checks and cost-saving behaviour. Businesses more often described non-compliance as linked to informal and relationship-based recruitment.

---

Businesses in the car wash sector emphasised price competition and business churn. Where non-compliance occurred in this sector, it was often viewed as part of a wider pattern of weak compliance with tax or other regulatory requirements.

---

Among the businesses in perceived high-risk sectors interviewed, all explained that the risk of being fined was a strong deterrent to any non-compliance. However, several felt that larger businesses were more likely to be able to absorb fines.

---

Businesses in high-risk sectors suggested that fines would work best when they were visible and enforced, and when combined with education and guidance.

This chapter examines how businesses, legal firms and a representative body described non-compliance with RTW checking requirements and the effect of enforcement. Findings are based on qualitative interviews and reflect participants’ perceptions of how and why non-compliance occurs. Participating businesses viewed themselves as compliant, meaning insights represent external understandings of non-compliance rather than direct accounts from non-compliant businesses.

Businesses interviewed from the construction sector included 3 micro businesses, 5 small businesses, 2 medium-sized businesses and one large business^{[footnote 7]}. They worked across a range of areas including house building, domestic and commercial renovations and refurbishments, flooring and general building. In the beauty sector, almost all businesses interviewed were micro businesses, with one small business. These businesses included a mix of beauty parlours, hairdressers and barbers. The 2 businesses in the car wash sector comprised one micro business and one small business.

Employment practices differed notably between sectors. In construction, businesses commonly described a mixed workforce model combining full-time general building staff with part-time skilled tradespeople, such as electricians and plumbers, alongside extensive use of subcontractors and self-employed workers. In some cases, this model operated at a substantial scale; one larger construction business reported that around 70% of its workforce was technically self-employed, despite many individuals having worked for the business for 15 years or more. More broadly, construction businesses often relied on subcontracted or self-employed workers who worked mostly, or even exclusively, for a single firm.

By contrast, businesses in the beauty sector more often described a more direct employment model, centred on full-time employees engaged on formal contracts. Compared with construction, there was less emphasis on layered subcontracting arrangements and greater reliance on a smaller, more stable in-house workforce. Despite this, many also employed a small number of part-time or self-employed workers, but not on the same scale as in construction. Some beauty businesses also reported employing family members and friends on a more casual or ad hoc basis.

Among the businesses in the car wash sector, one reported that most of their employees were employed full time, with a couple of part-time employees, while the other reported employing 2 part-time staff.

5.1 Overall drivers of non-compliance

Across the interviews, all businesses believed that non-compliance with RTW checking requirements occurred to some extent within their sector. They most often described non-compliance as something that arose through pressure, gaps in knowledge or weak processes rather than as a routine, deliberate strategy. Time pressure, uncertainty about how to complete checks, informal recruitment practices and incomplete awareness of checking requirements were all seen as increasing the risk of mistakes or ‘corner cutting’. At the same time, some participants believed that a minority of businesses may choose not to comply where they see a financial advantage in doing so.

The findings presented are in line with findings from previous research on employer immigration checks, which found that businesses cannot be categorised into 2 groups (compliant versus non-compliant). In fact, the perception among businesses interviewed in this research was that most instances of non-compliance were in businesses that generally complied with regulations, but either inadvertently did not comply due to lack of understanding of RTW checking requirements, or selectively did not comply at all times or with all checking requirements, due to commercial pressures (Home Office, 2025a).

A consistent theme in this research was the perception that smaller businesses in sectors with less formal recruitment and onboarding processes were seen as more exposed to potential errors when seeking to comply with RTW legislation. Businesses suggested checks were more likely to be incomplete where recruitment happened at short notice, where responsibility for checking was delegated without sufficient knowledge, or where employers relied on assumptions about an individual because they were already known to them or had already worked for other UK businesses.

There was a perception that awareness of immigration checking processes was low, with businesses suggesting that they learned about how to be compliant on the job and that it would be easy for new businesses to be accidentally non-compliant. More detail on the awareness and understanding of immigration checks can be found in Chapter 6.

While many expected that non-compliance was not deliberate and mainly due to time and knowledge barriers, businesses questioned whether some were ‘stretching boundaries’. While ‘boundaries’ varied by business, they mainly referred to not following all of the requirements or the correct immigration check processes on every occasion. Examples included employing people for a one-off job, using word of mouth to determine RTW status or not conducting checks until after trial periods had finished.

“You just have to ask the right questions … we know who’s not got the right to work here.”

Business, Beauty

A handful of businesses did believe that a minority of businesses were deliberately non-compliant. The perceived drivers for this non-compliance were usually to reduce labour costs, avoid tax, or to access a more flexible and cheaper workforce.

A few businesses also suspected that where non-compliance with RTW checking requirements occurred, it usually went hand in hand with non-compliance with other regulations, such as Health and Safety. They believed a subsection of businesses deliberately avoided following legislation to benefit themselves.

“Those that aren’t sort of complying with RTW checks are generally not complying with a lot of other sort of legislation tax etc yeah trying to get around all of it yeah.”

Business, Beauty

5.2 Sector-specific drivers of non-compliance

5.2.1 Construction

While the same broad themes appeared across sectors, there were specific sector differences. Businesses in the construction sector most strongly associated non-compliance with time pressures, urgent labour demand and complex subcontracting chains.

Businesses described projects being delivered to tight deadlines, with pressure to fill roles quickly and keep work on schedule. This meant that workers were often recruited informally and at short notice. For example, some businesses referred to workers being picked up in car parks. Businesses in the construction sector suggested this could lead to checks being rushed, delegated to staff with limited understanding, or treated as a secondary administrative task.

“A lot of the times… when you’re on site, there is a programme to meet and there’s penalties if you don’t meet these programmes. There’s so much pressure on site to just get the work done that I think a lot of the time, they probably get anybody to come in quick.”

Business, Construction

At present, there is no legal requirement for businesses to ensure the RTW of individuals who are employed via subcontractors to provide work or services. Despite this, construction participants highlighted the complexity of subcontracting chains and the large number of people employed, where visibility over who has carried out checks can reduce further down the supply chain. Some suggested that time pressures could intensify these risks, particularly where there was pressure to secure experienced workers quickly.

“But I think what you find, the companies that it tends to be is the large sort of labour suppliers of the world. And they’ve got, say, 20,000, 30,000 guys working a week. Two or three have slipped through the net. It’s not like it’s a mass 500. Yeah, it’s more human error and incompetence than it is you know corruption”

Business, Construction

Linked to this, skill shortages were also mentioned by businesses in the construction sector as a potential driver of non-compliance. Many businesses explained that if they knew someone with high-quality skills, they might be more likely to hire them without doing proper checks to ensure they could recruit the skills required.

“If their work is good, maybe I wouldn’t question.”

Business, Construction

5.2.2 Beauty

Non-compliance in the beauty sector was often linked to informal recruitment, owner-manager decision-making and cost-saving behaviour. Businesses more often described non-compliance as linked to informal and relationship-based recruitment. Owner-managed businesses were seen as more likely to recruit through word of mouth and use trial periods or short probationary arrangements, which could result in checks being delayed or applied inconsistently.

Participants in the beauty sector were also more likely than those in construction to discuss deliberate non-compliance for financial gain, particularly where businesses were thought to reduce tax liabilities or labour costs by employing people without the RTW.

“Probably to get staff which they don’t have to pay tax on, to be honest with you. So, there’s only going to be one reason to not do them checks.”

Business, Beauty

Several businesses in the beauty sector highlighted the financial pressure that businesses in their sector faced and that this could increase the temptation to cut corners.

“We’re too scared to put the prices up … because then we’re scared that we’ll lose clientele.”

Business, Beauty

5.2.3 Car washes

The car wash businesses interviewed emphasised price competition and business churn. Where non-compliance occurred in this sector, it was often viewed as part of a wider pattern of weak compliance with tax or other regulatory requirements. Car washes are perceived as operating in a low-transparency, cash-based environment, increasing non-compliance risk. There was also a perception of serious crimes being committed in some parts of the sector, including labour exploitation or modern slavery.

“These car washes would sort of pop up and then disappear and move and pop up again. And again, I don’t know the full story of exactly where these things were popping up, but we’d hear from our customers that their vehicles weren’t safe and that it wasn’t above board.”

Business, Car wash

5.3 Effectiveness of enforcement

5.3.1 Effectiveness of fines

All businesses interviewed explained that the risk of being fined was a strong deterrent to any non-compliance. Mostly, this was due to the financial impact; however, some reflected on the reputational risk. Businesses explained they would be significantly affected if they were to receive a fine. In some cases, they expected they would need to close their business.

“Two or three people on site and that’s £180,000 gone. That can finish a company.”

Business, Construction

Additionally, being fined would not only have a financial impact, but also a reputational impact among customers, with some businesses explaining that this risk also acted as a deterrent.

“I wouldn’t want the fine, and I definitely wouldn’t want to be named and shamed … that’s quite embarrassing as a business.”

Business, Beauty

On the other hand, other businesses interviewed felt that some businesses would be unlikely to be deterred. For example, several felt that larger businesses were more likely to be able to absorb fines compared with smaller businesses. A small number of participants described businesses closing and reopening under a new name after enforcement action, particularly in smaller service sectors, a process known as ‘phoenixing’. This was presented as a way in which some businesses might limit the long-term impact of penalties, reducing the deterrent effect of fines alone.

“If they can’t afford to pay it, they close the business down and reopen under a different name.”

Business, Car wash

“But if somebody comes down too hard on them, what will happen is they’ll say, you know what, we’ll liquidate the company and we’ll start tomorrow, different company, different name.”

Business, Construction

Reputational damage was also seen as uneven by some. While some businesses felt public naming would be highly damaging, others believed it would have limited effect where customers prioritised convenience or low prices. They felt that customers were unlikely to stop going even if the business received a fine and had been named.

“In certain communities it doesn’t really harm their brand … people still go there because they’re providing a service people need.”

Business, Beauty

5.3.2 Maximising the effect of enforcement

Some argued that non-compliant businesses might not understand the consequences of non-compliance. In addition, non-compliant businesses might be aware of competitors that do not carry out employer immigration checks but continue to operate normally without facing punishment, meaning they are less likely to see enforcement action related to non-compliance as a serious risk. A small number of businesses reflected on the importance of all businesses being aware of the potentially serious impact of compliance in terms of significant fines.

“It’s like if somebody says to you, you don’t have to do that if you don’t want, you’re not going to do it, are you? … But then if you say, look, from us having that first-hand experience, it is bloody important.”

Business, Construction

One business reported that awareness of penalties often only becomes salient “when someone gets busted”, suggesting there is a short-lived ripple effect in which other businesses become more cautious for a time, before commercial pressures and established practices re-assert themselves.

Legal firms and the representative body suggested that the effect of a fine can weaken over time if it is not followed by further monitoring or support. In their view, enforcement often produces an immediate improvement in compliance, but this may not be sustained where businesses continue to face the same commercial pressures and there is little follow-up.

“After a fine, they’re very careful – for a while. But if there’s no follow‑up, the fear reduces.”

Legal firm / Representative body

Overall, participants believed fines are most effective when they are visible, consistently enforced and combined with clear guidance. Hearing about other businesses being fined had increased caution among some interviewees, suggesting that enforcement can influence behaviour beyond the business directly affected. Some suggested that this was more influential when businesses heard of local cases or businesses they worked with being fined for non-compliance with RTW checking requirements.

6. Businesses – awareness of and barriers to completing employer immigration checks, and support needs

Key findings:

Businesses in perceived high-risk sectors had an understanding that employer immigration checks were required to prevent illegal working and exploitation; however, confidence varied.

---

Small businesses, especially those with 10 or fewer employees, tended to have lower confidence and less capacity to conduct checks and interpret guidance. They relied on searching external sources for relevant information as and when necessary.

---

Participants identified knowledge gaps as a critical risk factor, including inconsistent awareness that Right to Work checks should be conducted for all workers, including British nationals.

---

Informal recruitment processes more often led to inconsistent or selective checking. Businesses were more likely to turn a blind eye to employing somebody not authorised to work if they already knew them or sometimes trusted their word without checking.

---

In construction, extensive use of subcontracting blurred accountability for checks. Main contractors often trusted that checks had been completed further down the supply chain, by those who were directly employing workers.

---

Barriers complying with employer immigration checks included issues with using share codes, challenges identifying invalid documents, uncertainty around who is responsible for conducting checks, and challenges accessing and understanding guidance.

---

Businesses felt discouraged from contacting the Home Office with questions due to fear of enforcement, suggesting a need for more clearly signposted, advisory-led contact routes. Legal firms and representative bodies suggested that a more collaborative approach might be more effective in maximising compliance.

This chapter covers awareness of and barriers to completing employer immigration checks among businesses in high-risk sectors, legal firms and representative body interviewed as part of this research. It also considers what types of support might help to further compliance with employer immigration checks.

6.1 Awareness and understanding of legislation

General awareness of employer immigration legislation among the businesses interviewed was high, and all were confident that they were complying with checking requirements. They had an understanding that employer immigration checks were required to prevent illegal working and exploitation. They were also aware that failure to abide by the legislation meant they could be required to pay a fine. This aligns with previous research on employer awareness of employer immigration checks which found employers were concerned about preventing illegal work, complying with the legislation and avoiding fines (Home Office, 2025b).

However, the extent of businesses’ knowledge, especially around the need to carry out employer immigration checks for all employees, including British nationals, varied. This mirrors previous research on employer awareness of employer immigration checks which found some employers lack knowledge of key checking requirements (Home Office, 2025b).

“I wouldn’t say I’m an expert in it, but I’m definitely aware of it. I mean, from my understanding, right to work really applies to people that, you know, are not from the UK.”

Business, Construction

Additionally, some businesses mentioned they were unsure how much checking was required and were anxious they could fall foul of regulations despite trying to comply. Legal firms and representative bodies highlighted the importance of support in ensuring businesses feel confident carrying out checks.

“Even compliant businesses end up calling for clarification because they don’t trust they’ve understood it properly.”

Legal firm / Representative body

Micro employers tended to have lower confidence in their understanding of the RTW checking requirements, and relied on online search engines or the GOV.UK website to find relevant information as and when necessary. Smaller firms were also more likely to have no or outdated checking practices and were perceived as more likely to make human errors. This was especially the case if they used manual record-keeping or lacked the administrative capacity to keep up to date on changing employment legislation and ensure compliance. Again, this finding aligns with previous research on employer immigration checks, which found smaller businesses were less likely to be aware of the full range of legal obligations around ensuring RTW (Home Office, 2025b). Legal firms and representative bodies also reported that smaller, family-owned businesses were less likely to conduct employer immigration checks immediately.

In contrast, larger firms typically had more formalised processes, HR capacity and access to training. In particular, this included more dedicated time for monitoring legislative changes and ensuring that all workers are authorised to work. Access to training also helped ensure compliance. Similarly, businesses with access to legal or sector advice generally reported receiving clearer guidance, whereas those without (or who could not easily afford) such access were sometimes unaware of key responsibilities or regulatory changes.

“For us it’s quite straightforward because we have HR processes in place. It’s built into onboarding, so it’s just part of what we do.”

Business, Construction

A few beauty sector businesses expressed uncertainty about when employer immigration checks needed to be carried out. A few reported they would not conduct checks straight away because employees were hired casually and faced short probation periods. They did not want to go through RTW processes before they were confident they wanted to hire the person, but did not necessarily recognise this as being non-compliant with RTW checking requirements.

“We don’t ask for documents straight away. We’ll get word of mouth out, speak to them first, maybe give them a couple of weeks to see what they’re like, and then I’ll ask for everything.”

Business, Beauty

6.2 Recruitment and employer immigration checking processes

There was wide variation in recruitment approaches. Some businesses used agencies or the job centre, others posted job adverts, and some used informal hiring methods. The latter (hiring friends, family or local contacts) was more common among small businesses, whereas formal online recruitment or agency-driven hiring dominated for larger businesses, or businesses hoping to fill specific skills gaps, such as engineers or lawyers who need specific accreditations or qualifications.

Informal recruitment processes more often led to inconsistent or selective checking. Businesses were often inclined to trust that someone was authorised to work without checking where they were already known to the business, either through previous work or because they came via personal recommendation. Some businesses may also turn a blind eye to a worker that they suspected was unauthorised to work if they had a proven track record of working in the sector.

“These are often family‑run or community businesses. They’ll take someone on because they know them, or someone’s recommended them, and the paperwork side comes last”

Legal firm / Representative body

The businesses interviewed as part of this research often worked on time-limited projects or offered immediate services. As such, they were likely to use workers on temporary contracts or need them at short notice. This was more likely to result in a faster recruitment process, which could result in limited due diligence and checking RTW status.

Businesses reported that the process of checking RTW was straightforward for UK workers. They would ask to see the worker’s current passport to confirm the worker’s nationality and therefore proof of their RTW, and would then keep a photocopy for their records. In the case of a non-UK (or Irish) national, the most common course of action was to ask for a share code from the worker, which the employer could then check on the Home Office website.

“I would say easy is basically putting in the share code or just getting someone’s passport, you know, to verify which you know, you don’t have to do the checks. That makes it very simple, you know, less stressful to just get the right documents.”

Business, Beauty

Most businesses reported it was easy to get the required documents or share codes from potential employees. However, employers experienced resistance in a minority of cases.

“The only the real pushback you get is from the guys that haven’t got it yeah like I mentioned earlier you know they’ve lost [their] passport … you know I haven’t seen my birth certificate in 20 years, but 99 out of 100 those are your British guys.”

Business, Construction

6.3 Barriers faced when completing employer immigration checks

Businesses also spoke about the challenges and barriers they faced in ensuring compliance. While many reported no challenges, some said they faced at least some difficulties. These difficulties included issues with using share codes, challenges identifying invalid documents, uncertainty around who needs to be accountable for checks, and challenges accessing guidance.

6.3.1 Challenges with share codes and identifying valid documentation

Some businesses experienced issues using share codes. They noted they did not find the system user-friendly, and the process took a long time.

“I know that you can kind of do these digital, like sort of online digital checks and things like this. The number of times I’ve done that and I’ve had to reset my code and restart my code. And it’s a laborious process and very complicated.”

Business, Construction

Document verification challenges were also mentioned, with businesses feeling they might not be able to spot forged documents, particularly those from other countries. Some attributed this to staff not having been trained to identify forged documents or inconsistencies.

“Is it just an administration task that you just pass off to a receptionist who doesn’t really know what she’s checking? Have you got a passport? Yeah, great. Scan it. And that’s it or are we checking for multiple documents, checking photographs?”

Business, Construction

Other businesses noted instances where they were unsure of whether a prospective employee’s documentation was sufficient proof of their right to work. For example, one business cited difficulties when a potential employee provided a British passport which was out of date. This individual was reluctant to apply for a new passport and insisted their old copy was sufficient proof. As a result, the business could not hire the individual.

A few other businesses mentioned challenges with student visas, particularly around monitoring the number of hours worked and ensuring that visas are still valid.

“[If] they are on a student visa, a certain type of visa, then you do have to be a bit more proactive into looking into that and also keeping up to date with it as well. I do have a lot of friends that own businesses keeping up to date and stuff like that.”

Business, Beauty

Legal firms and representative bodies confirmed this challenge. They also stated that some businesses did not understand what constitutes valid forms of documentation. For example, the representative body gave an example of an employer thinking a valid graduate visa application was sufficient.

“One employee showed the employer proof that an application had been made, and the employer assumed that was fine. But the application had actually been submitted after [their existing] … visa expired. They didn’t know how to check whether it was valid.”

Legal firm / Representative body

A small number of businesses also expressed concern about the possibility that they could be purposefully exploited by employees trying to get round the system and take advantage of knowledge gaps.

“I know some of our directs, if someone came and said, ‘oh, I’ve got the share code’, some of them wouldn’t even know what to do with that. They’d be like, OK, what is this? What do you want? They could kind of say to you, ‘oh, it’s just this and this’ and they could kind of lead you down the wrong path to believe in everything’s okay and legit when it’s not.”

Business, Construction

6.3.2 Uncertainty around who is accountable for employer immigration checks

Some businesses in perceived high-risk sectors also reported that they were not always clear on who would need to be accountable for employer immigration checks. They mentioned these checks may be delegated to agencies, site managers or administrative staff. However, due to high turnover, limited handovers, and unclear task ownership, there were concerns this could contribute to gaps and unintentional non‑compliance, particularly in relation to conducting necessary follow-ups.

“They had all the right processes in place, but the main HR person left and the new person didn’t fully understand the role. There wasn’t a proper handover, and they missed the deadline to review someone’s immigration status.”

Business, Construction

As noted in Chapter 5, while there is no current legal requirement for businesses to check proof of the right to work among individuals who are contractors or employed via subcontractors, some businesses noted confusion as to who is accountable in this instance. These businesses reported that mid-to-large-sized firms, in particular, would struggle to verify checks conducted further down the chain, due to the number of subcontractors engaged. Instead, businesses explained they would have to rely on trust. Businesses noted they expected this to present a potential barrier to compliance, exacerbated by time pressures. Subcontracting was far more prevalent in construction, and rarely used in car washes or beauty, so the risks in construction were greater. For example, some construction businesses mentioned that they knew of businesses that often had to deploy thousands of people a week across several large-scale projects and that it would be challenging to be confident in the degree of compliance across the supply chain.

6.3.3 Challenges accessing guidance

Some businesses frequently turn to GOV.UK, others rely on training providers, insurance helplines, legal advisers, accountants or even AI (for example, ChatGPT) to receive guidance on employer immigration checks. However, the accuracy and consistency of the information accessed varied, and some felt unsure of where to go to get accurate and digestible information on the required checks. Some said they would go to GOV.UK if they were unsure, but that navigating the site could be confusing due to the volume of information they had to sift through. In addition, terminology was a barrier for some, who reported that even when they found the correct information, it was hard to interpret. This aligns with previous research on employer immigration checks, which found that guidance can feel overwhelming, particularly for smaller businesses, and more tailored guidance would be useful (Home Office, 2025b).

“It could be easier, it’s definitely … very confusing the terminology. I mean, I couldn’t even tell you what remain to leave meant.”

Business, Car wash

Businesses that had contacted the Home Office about complex cases mostly reported receiving useful advice. However, others were unaware they were able to do this or were discouraged from doing so due to fear of enforcement. In some cases, this led to a lack of engagement with RTW legislation, with businesses preferring to assume their current practice is sufficient.

6.4 Support needs

As noted, businesses, legal firms and the representative body all reported that fear of mistakes drives anxiety. Most businesses felt they had “nothing to hide,” but worried about accidental non-compliance due to the perceived complexity of guidance and the severity of penalties. To address this, businesses suggested more clearly signposted, advisory-led contact routes, such as a helpline. Businesses felt this would be particularly effective alongside advertised positive testimonials from other businesses that had used the helpline. Legal firms and representative bodies expressed that a more collaborative approach to ensuring RTW compliance might be more effective.

“What’s missing is a space where employers can say, ‘we think we’ve made a mistake – how do we fix it?’ without worrying that it will automatically lead to a fine. Businesses would come forward much earlier if the Home Office approach felt more collaborative.”

Legal firm / Representative body

“To just have, you’re like you and me right now are having a very informal, dare I say, conversation where it’s more of a conversation rather than an interrogation.”

Business, Beauty

As well as these contact routes, businesses also requested simpler explanations of the employer immigration checking process and potential penalties on GOV.UK and related resources to make it easier for businesses to engage. Businesses expressed particular interest in further guidance on how to ensure documentation is valid when conducting employer immigration checks, as well as sector-specific guidance. For example, a handful of businesses in the beauty sector mentioned examples relevant to their sector, such as what to do when a barber rents a chair from a salon owner.

A small number of businesses suggested promoting third-party software or digital identity checks that would help support businesses in ensuring they remained compliant.

“We pay for [provider]. I don’t know how much we pay for it. But it’s a lifesaver. Reason being, it’s 99.9% accurate. You could give me 50 guys with 50 passports to store on the system, and I could do everything correctly. But without that [provider], I could have 50 fake passports there. And I’d never know.”

Business, Construction

A final suggestion was that more information about carrying out employer immigration checks could be advertised or directly shared with businesses. Businesses suggested this could include visible advertisements, checklists, infographics or links to dedicated webpages to help raise awareness of RTW checking requirements. A handful felt that links to this form of support would be most effective via Companies House or recruitment platforms. Others suggested direct interventions, such as guidance and training leaflets or emails being automatically sent to new businesses as an effective way to help them ensure they were compliant.

“Having it pinned on perhaps online job application sites or where employers are posting their job opportunities. Something like that could be a good way of really reaching people that potentially could be, you know, up for these spot checks or put in their business at risk if they didn’t know about it.”

Business, Construction

7. Conclusions

The findings from this report indicate that there are several key themes which are relevant to both platform working and businesses in high-risk sectors, in relation to non-compliance.

7.1 Flexible working and employment

Flexibility is a core feature of both the gig economy and high-risk sector labour markets. However, in both cases, flexibility can also create opportunities for non-compliant behaviour.

The key motivation for platform workers in accessing work via digital platforms was the flexibility of this work. This flexibility was valued for the autonomy it offered – the ability to choose when to work, respond to demand and generate income, and fit platform work around other caring or working responsibilities. For those unauthorised to work, flexibility was also highly valued, as it was viewed as more accessible than other work opportunities in the informal economy and a lower-risk way of securing income, while also allowing workers to combine platform work with other informal or cash-in-hand work opportunities.

Similarly, the research suggests that flexibility in how platforms can be used also helps to create the conditions for account sharing. Platform workers who are account sharing can access an account to find work when the account is not in use by the main account holder. Platform verification checks which validate the primary user is using the account are often limited or sometimes non-existent. Again, this leaves room for non-compliance.

This shows the importance of having a platform design that optimises the sign-up process, verification checks and work allocation to benefit workers, while also minimising non-compliance.

Across perceived high-risk sectors, businesses rely on fast and flexible recruitment processes. This is particularly the case within the construction sector, where there is a need to fill roles quickly due to tight timescales. In some cases, this can lead to rapid and informal recruitment, where employer immigration checks can become deprioritised or there is a lack of clarity in terms of who is accountable for carrying out checks. This is also more likely to be the case among smaller businesses across high-risk sectors, with fewer resources to carry out these checks. Businesses recognise instances where ‘corners are cut’, so that even where they intend to be compliant, there is an increased risk of non-compliance.

There is a need for businesses to balance speed and rigour when immigration checks are undertaken, which clear guidance and awareness of accountability can support.

7.2 The role of informal networks

Informal networks were central to how people both entered platform work and how businesses recruited and employed workers.

Friends, family and roommates were the main route through which platform workers first heard about platform work, and often provided practical advice on platforms, earnings and ways of working. For those unauthorised to work, these networks also enabled access to work through account sharing. These arrangements were often described as pragmatic rather than overtly exploitative, with commissions or fixed deductions sometimes seen as an acceptable ‘cost of access’.

The business strand reflected similar patterns. Businesses in high-risk sectors described how informal recruitment and ‘known person’ hiring could lead to inconsistent or selective checking, with employers more likely to trust someone they knew or who had been recommended. Informal networks therefore acted not only as a route into work, but also as a mechanism through which non-compliance could become normalised and less likely to be challenged. Where checks are applied selectively, businesses increase their exposure to non-compliance and associated sanctions.

Taken together, these findings show that non-compliance may be sustained through ordinary social relationships and informal recruitment practices, making it harder to identify and address through formal checks alone.

7.3 Enforcement and deterrence

Overall, enforcement is influencing behaviour, but inconsistently. Limited visibility reduces its deterrent effect for some workers, while its impact remains stronger for businesses where consequences are clearer.

For platform workers, enforcement was rarely experienced directly but still shaped behaviour. Awareness, often gained through peers or media coverage, contributed to a generalised sense of risk, which in turn influenced how people worked. For those not authorised to work and who were account sharing, responses varied – some adapted their behaviour to minimise exposure, while others operated on the assumption that detection was unlikely. This suggests that perceived risk is uneven and does not consistently translate into deterrence.

In contrast, for businesses, the implications of enforcement were more immediate and concrete. The risk of civil penalties was a strong motivator for compliance, particularly among smaller firms where fines were seen as hugely detrimental to business stability and survival. However, there was a perception that this deterrent effect may be less effective for larger organisations who are more able to absorb financial penalties. Enforcement was therefore seen as most impactful when it is visible, applied consistently and followed up. Without this, the perceived risk of being sanctioned diminishes over time, weakening its influence on behaviour.

This highlights the importance of maintaining visible and consistent enforcement to sustain its effectiveness as a deterrent to illegal hiring and working for platform workers and businesses.

References

BEIS (2018) ‘The characteristics of those in the gig economy.’ Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (viewed on 27 August 2026)

Home Office (2023) ‘A review of external evidence of the compliant environment: Literature synthesis of external evidence and best use of international examples’ (viewed on 27 August 2026)

Home Office (2025a) ‘Employer immigration checks’ (viewed on 27 August 2026)

Home Office (2025b) ‘Employer awareness of, and self-reported compliance with, Right to Work checks’ (viewed on 27 August 2026)

UK Government (2025) ‘Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006’ (viewed on 27 August 2026)

Annex A: Methodology

Platform-based worker strand

Depth interviews with platform workers undertaking digital platform-based work were conducted between December 2025 and mid-February 2026.

The sampling quotas were set to ensure a spread of experiences across different sectors, length of time working through digital platforms, if platform workers had any experience of account sharing, demographic characteristics (including nationality, gender and age), and whether they were authorised to work in the UK.

These criteria were also used to support analysis across sub-groups, to understand how such factors shape experiences within the gig economy. The report focuses in particular on differences in experiences between authorised and unauthorised platform-based workers, as well as differences between sectors.

Interviews were completed with 24 platform workers, 11 of whom believed they were unauthorised and 13 who believed they were authorised to work in the UK.

Table 2: Interviews completed with platform workers across sectors of the gig economy

Sector[footnote 8]	Number of participants
Private hire transport – driving customers via bookings made on a digital app	4
Food delivery services (including groceries or household items) – delivering products via bicycle, motorcycle or car	10
Courier service delivery – delivering packages by car or van	8
Other	2
Total	24

To facilitate recruitment, platform workers’ confidentiality was prioritised, with pseudonyms used and no identifying information shared with the Home Office. Informed consent was obtained at multiple stages, and interviews were conducted in platform workers’ preferred formats (such as via Teams call or telephone). Safeguarding protocols included signposting to support services, and effective escalation processes were in place should any concerns be flagged during the interviews.

Businesses in high-risk sectors, legal firms and representative bodies strand

We conducted 19 interviews in March 2026 with businesses in high-risk sectors – 11 construction businesses, 6 beauty sector businesses and 2 car washes. We also interviewed 2 legal firms and one professional representative body with experience in supporting businesses with employer immigration checks.

Free-find methods were used to identify legal firms and representative bodies, who were contacted via email with telephone follow-up to confirm screening criteria.

Sampling quotas were also used to ensure interviews focused on the experiences of businesses in high-risk sectors of interest, including construction, beauty and car washes. Quotas were used to ensure a spread of employer sizes.

1. Platform-based work refers to work through digital platforms (apps) where individuals are self-employed or workers who work on a short term, task-by-task basis, and receive payment through the platform. This commonly includes food delivery, courier and private hire transport roles, but can also include other ad hoc work such as DIY or other services. ↩

2. Platform-based work refers to work through digital platforms (apps) where individuals are self-employed or workers and work on a short term, task-by-task basis, and receive payment through the platform. This commonly includes food delivery, courier and private hire transport roles, but can also include other ad hoc work such as DIY or other services. ↩

3. A small sub-set of participants worked across multiple sectors and in different sectors (such as food delivery and courier work). The number of participants shown in the table relate to the sector in which each platform worker completed most of their platform-based work. ↩

4. Planned legislative changes are expected to come into force during 2026 to extend RTW checking requirements to digital platforms in parts of the gig economy. ↩

5. Irish nationals can provide an Irish passport ↩

6. Previous Home Office research has found that irregular migrants in the UK tend to change behaviour, including while working, to reduce detection risks (Home Office, 2023). ↩

7. Micro: 0 to 9 employees; small: 10 to 49; medium: 50 to 249; large: 250 plus employees. ↩

8. A small sub-set of participants worked across multiple sectors and in different sectors (such as food delivery and courier work). The number of participants shown in the table relate to the sector in which each platform worker completed most of their platform-based work. ↩