Make right-to-work checks a clear part of recruitment.

Understand the process your team actually follows

A written recruitment policy is useful only if managers know how to apply it. Yudey offers a process review enquiry for UK employers who want to understand how right-to-work checks fit into hiring, onboarding and record management. The review starts with the real workflow: who makes an offer, who requests information, who carries out the check and where the result is stored.

GOV.UK sets out the employer checking framework and the different methods that may apply. ^[1] The agreed review can map your process against questions requiring professional assessment. It is not a certificate that every employee has permission to work or a guarantee against penalties. Individual status questions must be considered on their own evidence by an appropriately qualified and authorised professional where advice is required.

Map responsibilities before choosing new software

A missed check can result from unclear ownership rather than a lack of technology. We can document handovers between recruitment agencies, hiring managers, HR and payroll. The working map identifies when evidence is requested, who assesses the checking method and how completion is communicated before the employment start. Outsourcing part of recruitment should not leave the business unsure who owns the employer's process.

The review can also consider cover for absence, remote hiring and multiple locations. A small business may need a simple controlled checklist, while a larger employer may need role-based access and approval records. We do not prescribe a new platform before understanding the workflow. The output should explain what the process needs to achieve and which decisions require specialist input before implementation.

Look at evidence quality and retrieval

Within an agreed sample, we can examine how check records are named, dated and connected with the employee file. A folder labelled complete may still be difficult to interpret if it does not show what was checked and by whom. The review records factual gaps without backdating activity or suggesting that an incomplete historical check can simply be recreated as if it happened earlier.

The evidence assessment should also consider who can access sensitive information and how records are retrieved when needed. We can identify inconsistent storage, uncontrolled copies and unclear retention ownership for further review. The aim is a workable administrative system with suitable professional input, rather than collecting more personal information than the checking process requires or placing immigration records in general recruitment chat threads.

Build follow-up and exception handling into the workflow

Some files may require follow-up action or a different checking route. The process review can examine how reminders are created, who receives them and what happens when information is unclear. It should identify escalation points instead of leaving a manager to make an unsupported status decision. An unresolved concern should be recorded accurately and referred through the agreed professional channel.

Consistency matters across applicants and existing staff. The review can consider whether managers use a standard starting process and know when to ask for specialist help. It does not authorise discriminatory assumptions based on names, appearance or nationality. Employment decisions, including delaying a start or taking action against an employee, need their own lawful assessment and should not be inferred from an administrative gap alone.

Define the professional boundary and output

The deliverable can include a workflow map, sample findings, an action register and proposed responsibility assignments. Each recommendation should identify whether it is an administrative improvement or requires legal approval. If case-specific immigration advice is needed, the responsible provider and scope must be confirmed before that work is accepted. GOV.UK explains how to find an appropriately regulated immigration adviser. ^[2]

This page does not establish that Yudey is an authorised immigration advice provider. A process coordination engagement must not be used to bypass that requirement. The quotation should identify any separate professional instruction, what the employer will receive and who approves revised policies. Training delivery, system configuration and ongoing checks are included only where the written scope expressly says so.

Request a review matched to your recruitment activity

Tell us the approximate workforce size, locations, hiring volume and current checking method. Explain any urgent start date or known concern at the outset. An initial enquiry can use anonymised examples; full employee documents should be shared only after appropriate access, authority and document handling have been agreed. We will clarify the review sample and responsible people before detailed work begins.

Fees depend on the workflow complexity, sample size and professional input required. The proposal states charges in pounds sterling, applicable VAT and the limits of the exercise. A process review is a defined assessment at a particular time. It does not replace the employer's continuing responsibilities or imply that future recruitment decisions have already been checked and approved.