Care home sponsor licence compliance is a sensitive and important obligation for nursing homes. In this article Leena Chouhan examines a particular case involving a High Court ruling.
High Court Rules Against Home Office on Genuine Vacancy Requirement
The High Court has ruled that the Home Office’s approach to assessing the ‘genuine vacancy’ requirement for care sector sponsorship is unlawful. This decision is a significant win for care home operators struggling with the stringent demands placed on them when hiring overseas workers.
Background
In October 2023, the Home Office began requiring care sector sponsors to provide contracts proving their need for additional staff. This applied to both existing sponsors seeking more Certificates of Sponsorship (CoS) and prospective sponsors applying for a licence.
Hartford Care Group Ltd challenged this policy after its request for 70 defined CoS was refused. The Home Office had asked for contracts with local authorities that clearly specified the number of service users, required staff, and service locations. The care home operator provided flexible contracts from three councils. However, because these agreements did not guarantee specific staffing numbers, the Home Office deemed them insufficient.
On 19 January 2024, the Home Office rejected the request, arguing that the care home had not demonstrated an immediate need for 70 workers. It maintained that vacancies must be based on current, not expected, demand. Because businesses routinely recruit in anticipation of future staffing needs, this reasoning was flawed
The Court’s Decision
Rather than submitting another CoS request, the care home operator took the matter to court. It argued that the Home Office’s approach was a new, unpublished policy that should have been explicitly included in the immigration rules. While the court disagreed on this point, it ruled that the Home Office’s requirement for guaranteed hours of work was irrational and unreasonable.
The judgment highlighted that such contracts are not standard in the care sector. The Home Office was effectively demanding evidence that care providers could not produce. As a result, the decision was quashed. This means the Home Office must now reassess the CoS request without considering specific guarantees in the contracts provided.
What This Means for Care home sponsor licence compliance
This ruling is a positive development for care sector sponsors. Indeed, those previously refused CoS due to a lack of specific contract guarantees may now have grounds to reapply with a higher likelihood of success. Importantly, the court rejected the Home Office’s stance that vacancies cannot be based on expected demand. Thus, care providers can still meet the genuine vacancy requirement without proving an immediate need for staff.
Going forward, the Home Office will likely refine its approach to assessing genuine vacancies. Nevertheless, care home operators should be prepared to provide alternative evidence of staffing needs. This could, for instance, mean presenting organisational charts showing current vacancies.
Conclusion
This decision provides much-needed clarity and relief for care providers seeking to navigate an increasingly complex immigration landscape.
If you are in care home management and have questions about care home sponsor licence compliance please contact Leena Chouhan HERE or call +44207427 5972
