We use essential cookies to keep the platform secure and working. With your consent, we also use analytics cookies to understand how you use the platform and improve it. Learn more in our Privacy Policy.
A care provider received a UKVI Sponsor Licensing Unit email raising concerns that sponsored workers were not being paid the salary stated on their Certificate of Sponsorship. Here is what happened, what we did, and how to book a call.


There is a particular Home Office email that tends to change the mood in a care provider’s office instantly.
It often starts with wording like this:
“We are looking into concerns that suggest your current sponsored workers may not be receiving a salary that matches the salary stated…”
That exact wording appeared in an email that landed during a call with a care provider, late afternoon, while we were speaking.
This post explains what the case was, what the Home Office raised, what we did to deal with it within the timeframe given, and how to book a call if you want to discuss a similar situation.
A care provider received an email from the Sponsor Licensing Unit (UK Visas and Immigration) with the subject line showing “Sponsor Action Required”.
The email raised a specific concern: that current sponsored workers may not be receiving a salary that matches the salary stated on their Certificate of Sponsorship.
The email also referenced the sponsor guidance and stated that UKVI reserves the right to revoke a sponsor licence where there is a serious or systematic breach of sponsor duties. It then pointed to salary underpayment scenarios as grounds for revocation, including where:- a sponsored worker is paid less than stated on their CoS, and
The practical reality is that this type of message is not a general reminder. It is a case specific action request with a clock attached.
Around three months earlier: the provider had first discussed getting support, but did not proceed at that stage.
06 February 2026: the “Sponsor Action Required” email arrived (the email screenshot shows 06/02/2026).
Response deadline: the provider was required to respond by 20 February 2026, described as 10 working days.
Although the email itself is short, the concern behind it usually requires a complete evidence trail, worker by worker, pay period by pay period.
In this case, the documentation set we prepared and organised covered the type of records UKVI typically expects to see when salary is in question, including:- employment contracts and salary terms
The work is not only collecting documents. It is showing that the documents tell a coherent story.
This was handled as an urgent, structured response build, designed around the deadline and the specific allegation: salary paid versus salary stated on the CoS.
We started by confirming:

This allowed the work to be planned as a finite deliverable, rather than an open ended scramble.
We built a map for each sponsored worker that aligned:
That gave us a single view of what UKVI would be comparing.
We reconciled payroll and payment evidence against the CoS salary position, then identified where variances existed.
Where the numbers did not align cleanly at first glance, we produced an evidence based explanation supported by the documents already gathered, so that the response did not depend on informal narration.
We then assembled the evidence into an ordered pack so a caseworker could:
This part is often what separates “we sent everything” from “we sent something reviewable”.
We drafted written representations that followed the UKVI concern directly and kept the response tight:
The representations were cross referenced to the evidence pack, so the narrative and the documents matched.
Finally, we prepared the submission for delivery within the timeframe stated in the email, with a clear audit trail of what was included.
This case demonstrates the shape of a salary mismatch concern when it arrives as a Sponsor Licensing Unit action email:
the response is judged on whether the documentary record is coherent, complete, and easy to verify
If you want to see how payroll and salary evidence failures led to revocation in another case, read our case study: They Submitted Every Document — Still Revoked.
If you want to understand how pay-related concerns featured in a suspension case, read our case study: Suspension Reinstated With a B-Rating.
If you want to learn how to align salary records before a compliance check, read our case study: How Compliance Visits Are Decided Before the Visit.
The problems described in this case — gaps in documentation, misaligned records, missed reporting deadlines, and payroll inconsistencies — are exactly the compliance failures the Sponsor Complians Hub was built to prevent.
The Hub gives care providers a single platform to monitor sponsored worker files, track right to work expiry dates, reconcile salary evidence against Certificates of Sponsorship, and maintain audit-ready records at all times. Instead of scrambling to assemble evidence after a Home Office email arrives, providers using the Hub have structured, up-to-date compliance data available continuously.
Whether you are responding to an active compliance check, preparing for a visit, or simply want to know where your gaps are before the Home Office finds them — the Hub is designed to keep you ahead of enforcement, not behind it.
Join the Sponsor Complians Hub →
This article is provided for information only and does not constitute legal advice. All identifying details have been anonymised.
Join care providers who receive our weekly sponsor compliance tips, Home Office policy updates, and practical guidance — free.