Free Sponsor Licence Compliance Response — Suspension & Visit Representations

Sponsor Licence Compliance Response

Thornbridge Digital Ltd  ·  Licence A7K2M90155Z  ·  8 June 2026

This is the formal response of Thornbridge Digital Ltd (sponsor licence number A7K2M90155Z) to the response to licence suspension notice, reference SC/2026/044712, dated 18 May 2026. The response deadline stated in the correspondence is 15 June 2026; this response is submitted on 8 June 2026, within that period.

This response is made within the 20 working days allowed by the Workers and Temporary Workers: guidance for sponsors for written representations against a suspension, with supporting evidence. The sponsor notes that the guidance structure — suspension, reasons, opportunity to respond, then decision — is the procedural safeguard the High Court enforced in R (New Hope Care Ltd) v SSHD [2024] EWHC 1270 (Admin): a decision taken without a meaningful opportunity to respond to the concerns relied on is unlawful.

The sponsor treats its licence as a privilege founded on trust — R (New London College Ltd) v SSHD [2013] UKSC 51; R (Raj and Knoll Ltd) v SSHD [2016] EWCA Civ 770 — and this response is structured accordingly: factual corrections first, the compliance position duty by duty, the remediation already completed, and the proportionality of the outcome sought.

Organisation: Thornbridge Digital Ltd
Sponsor licence number: A7K2M90155Z
Registered / trading address: Unit 9, Calverley Works, 28 Burley Road, Leeds LS3 1JP
Telephone: 0113 496 0455
Email: compliance@thornbridgedigital.co.uk
Authorising Officer: Eleanor Stainforth, Operations Director
UKVI reference: SC/2026/044712

Action: Response to licence suspension notice
Date of visit / notice: 18 May 2026
Response deadline: 15 June 2026

Alleged breaches (as stated by UKVI):
The suspension letter of 18 May 2026 alleges: (1) record-keeping failure — right-to-work evidence said to be missing for two sponsored workers (Mr K. Adeyemi and Ms R. Petrova) at the unannounced visit of 7 May 2026; (2) reporting failure — a change of work location for four sponsored workers (hybrid working from the Calverley Works office) said not to have been reported within 10 working days; (3) a concern that one role (UX designer, SOC 2142) may not meet the skill level stated on the CoS.

Each allegation is answered with documents. (1) The right-to-work checks for both named workers were completed before employment began using the Home Office online service; the share code check PDFs were stored in the HR system and are enclosed — at the visit the duty manager could not access the HR drive, which is an access failure, not a record-keeping failure, and access procedures have been corrected. (2) The hybrid-working arrangement was reported via the Sponsorship Management System on 14 March 2026, within 10 working days of the 3 March 2026 effective date; the SMS report reference is enclosed. (3) The UX designer role is an RQF Level 6 occupation; the role description, deliverables and line management evidence enclosed match the CoS as assigned. The sponsor has nonetheless completed a full file audit and refresher training, evidenced in the remediation plan.

The sponsor asks UKVI to lift the suspension and reinstate the A-rating: the documents demonstrate that the right-to-work checks existed and pre-dated employment, the location change was reported in time, and the role matches the CoS. In the alternative, if any residual concern remains, the sponsor asks that it be dealt with by way of an action plan rather than revocation, in line with the guidance ladder and the completed remediation.

The sponsor addresses each duty in the Workers and Temporary Workers: guidance for sponsors in turn.

(1) RECORD-KEEPING (APPENDIX D). Documents prescribed by Appendix D are retained for each sponsored worker — right-to-work evidence, contact details, absence records, salary and recruitment evidence. Appendix D records are held in the BreatheHR system with a mirrored compliance drive: right-to-work evidence (share code PDFs), contact details, absence records, payslips and recruitment evidence (job advertisements, shortlisting notes, interview records) for each of the 11 sponsored workers. The two files queried at the visit were complete on the system as at 7 May 2026 — the audit trail (enclosure E3, system metadata) shows the share code checks stored on 12 August 2024 (Adeyemi) and 3 February 2025 (Petrova), both before employment start.

(2) RIGHT-TO-WORK CHECKS. Prescribed checks are completed before employment starts, establishing the statutory excuse under sections 15 to 25 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. All 11 sponsored workers were checked using the Home Office online right-to-work service before their start dates; the share code check results (with photographs) are retained as PDFs. No worker is employed on a manual List A/B check. The statutory excuse position under sections 15 to 25 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 is therefore complete for every sponsored worker, and repeat checks are diarised ahead of each permission expiry.

(3) REPORTING (SMS — 10 WORKING DAYS). Reportable events are notified via the Sponsorship Management System within 10 working days. Reportable events in the last 24 months: one early termination (reported 4 working days after the event), one salary increase on promotion (reported 6 working days), and the hybrid-working location change of 3 March 2026 (reported 14 March 2026 — 8 working days, within the 10-working-day limit). SMS report references and screenshots are enclosed as E5-E7.

(4) GENUINE VACANCY + SALARY. Each sponsored role is a genuine vacancy at the stated skill level and is paid at or above the CoS salary and the threshold and going rate in force at assignment (from 22 July 2025: £41,700 / £17.13 per hour general threshold, RQF Level 6 subject to the Temporary Shortage List). Payroll reconciliation (enclosure E8) shows each sponsored worker paid at or above the CoS salary; the lowest-paid sponsored role is £43,900, above the £41,700 general threshold in force from 22 July 2025 and above the SOC going rate pro-rated to 37.5 hours. The UX designer role queried at the visit is an RQF Level 6 occupation; the enclosed role description and deliverables match the CoS duties verbatim.

(5) COOPERATION + NO RECOUPMENT. The sponsor cooperates with announced and unannounced visits and produces documents within the time limits given; the Immigration Skills Charge is borne by the sponsor and no sponsorship costs are recouped from workers (a revocation ground since the 31 December 2024 guidance changes). The unannounced visit of 7 May 2026 was given full access; the follow-up document request was answered within the five working days specified. The Immigration Skills Charge and all CoS fees were paid by the sponsor and appear in the enclosed ledger extract (E9); no deduction, repayment agreement or clawback clause exists in any sponsored workerand#39;s contract, consistent with the recoupment prohibition strengthened by the 31 December 2024 guidance changes.

Duties narrative:
The compliance position across the five duties is evidenced, current and auditable; the single genuine failure on 7 May 2026 was an internal access problem during the visit, corrected the same week.

Record-keeping framework. Appendix D of the sponsor guidance prescribes the documents to be kept for each sponsored worker — right-to-work evidence, contact details, absence records, salary and recruitment evidence — for the prescribed retention periods. The question on review is whether the documents existed and were produced within the time limit given, not whether filing was elegant: R (Raj and Knoll Ltd) v SSHD [2016] EWCA Civ 770 turned on a failure to maintain and produce such records.

(A) FACTUAL REBUTTAL. The letter asserts that right-to-work evidence was "not available" for Mr Adeyemi and Ms Petrova. The contemporaneous position: the duty manager on site could not log into the HR drive while the compliance officers were present, and the officers recorded the documents as missing. The system metadata (E3) proves both share code PDFs were created and stored before each workerand#39;s start date and were unmodified since. The documents existed; what failed was access during the visit. The guidance distinguishes between records not kept and records not produced — and the follow-up production within the five working days given answered the request in full.

(B) EVIDENCE INDEX. E1: suspension letter 18 May 2026. E2: share code check PDFs (Adeyemi 12 Aug 2024; Petrova 3 Feb 2025). E3: HR system metadata audit trail. E4: visit-day incident note and corrected access procedure. E5-E7: SMS report references (termination, salary change, hybrid location change). E8: payroll-to-CoS reconciliation, all 11 workers. E9: ISC and CoS fee ledger. E10: UX designer role description, sprint deliverables and line management chart. E11: refresher training records 26-27 May 2026. E12: full-file audit report 30 May 2026.

Breach narrative:
On the corrected facts, none of the three allegations discloses a breach of the sponsor duties; the access failure during the visit has been remedied and tested.

The sponsor does not rest on rebuttal alone: the following remediation is completed or in progress, with named owners and dates, so that the position is sustainable and auditable.

(1) IMMEDIATE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS. Completed by 30 May 2026: (1) compliance drive access extended to all duty managers with quarterly access tests; (2) a printed-and-locked fallback pack created for visit days containing current Appendix D extracts; (3) the visit-day procedure rewritten so the Authorising Officer is contacted immediately when officers attend unannounced.

(2) TRAINING. Refresher training on sponsor duties (record-keeping, right-to-work, SMS reporting) delivered on 26-27 May 2026 to HR (3 staff), duty managers (4) and finance (2) by an external immigration compliance trainer; attendance sheets and materials retained (E11); annual refresh diarised.

(3) SMS AND FILE AUDIT. A full-file audit of all 11 sponsored workers was completed on 30 May 2026 (E12): Appendix D completeness 11/11; right-to-work evidence 11/11 predating employment start; no unreported reportable events; payroll matches CoS 11/11. The audit will repeat six-monthly with the report retained for inspection.

(4) KEY PERSONNEL. The Authorising Officer (Eleanor Stainforth, Operations Director) has personally reviewed and signed off the audit and this response. Level 1 User access remains with the AO and the HR Manager, both employees, both DBS-checked; no key personnel changes are pending. A standing item on sponsor compliance has been added to the monthly operations board.

(A) PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS — MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND. R (New Hope Care Ltd) v SSHD [2024] EWHC 1270 (Admin) establishes that revocation without a meaningful opportunity to respond to the concerns relied on is unlawful — inconsistent with the published policy, contrary to legitimate expectation and procedurally unfair at common law. Any decision on this licence must therefore engage with this response: each concern is answered with evidence, and no new ground may fairly be relied on without a further opportunity to address it. The sponsor acknowledges that the suspension letter sets out the concerns and allows 20 working days to respond — the structure New Hope Care requires. Allegation (3), however, is framed only as a "concern" that the UX designer role "may not" meet the skill level, without identifying which duty on the CoS is said to fall below RQF Level 6. If anything beyond the enclosed role evidence is relied on, the sponsor requests particulars and an opportunity to address them before any decision, consistent with R (New Hope Care Ltd) v SSHD [2024] EWHC 1270 (Admin).

(B) ANNEX C1 / C2 CATEGORISATION AND PROPORTIONALITY. Annex C1 (mandatory revocation) is confined to its listed circumstances; Annex C2 grounds are discretionary, and the discretion must be exercised on the corrected facts and the completed remediation. Where the breach alleged is not made out on the documents, or is an isolated administrative lapse remedied in full, the proportionate outcome on the guidance ladder is reinstatement of the A-rating or, at most, an action plan — not revocation. None of the Annex C1 mandatory revocation circumstances is engaged: the right-to-work checks existed and pre-dated employment, the reporting was in time, and no recoupment or threat to immigration control arises. Any residual view that visit-day production was inadequate falls, at most, within the discretionary range — and the discretion must weigh the corrected facts, the complete remediation and an otherwise clean nine-year licence history. On the guidance ladder the proportionate outcomes are reinstatement of the A-rating or, at the highest, a time-limited action plan.

(C) CONSEQUENCES — REALISM ABOUT THE CASE LAW. The sponsor is aware that R (Prestwick Care Ltd) v SSHD [2025] EWCA Civ 184 confirms UKVI is under no general duty to assess the impact of revocation on the business, its workers or service users — this response therefore wins or loses on compliance substance and procedure. The consequences are nonetheless recorded for the discretionary balance: on revocation, sponsored workers' permission is typically curtailed to 60 days. The sponsor records — as context for the discretionary balance, recognising that R (Prestwick Care Ltd) v SSHD [2025] EWCA Civ 184 imposes no duty on UKVI to assess impact — that 11 sponsored workers (software engineers, UX, data) hold permission tied to this licence, with three families on dependant visas; revocation would curtail their permission to 60 days and halt two NHS-facing delivery contracts.

(D) JUDICIAL REVIEW RESERVED. There is no statutory appeal against suspension or revocation. If the licence is revoked notwithstanding this response, the sponsor will send a pre-action protocol letter and issue judicial review proceedings promptly and in any event within 3 months, on the grounds foreshadowed here — procedural unfairness (New Hope Care), error of fact, misapplication of the Annex C1/C2 framework and disproportionality. If the licence is revoked notwithstanding this response, the sponsor is instructed and ready to send a pre-action protocol letter within 7 days and to issue judicial review proceedings promptly and in any event within 3 months, on the grounds set out above: procedural unfairness as to allegation (3), error of fact as to allegations (1) and (2), misapplication of the Annex C1/C2 framework, and disproportionality. The CoS pipeline (two assigned, start dates August 2026) makes expedition relevant.

The sponsor encloses:

   (a) a copy of the UKVI letter dated 18 May 2026;
   (b) this response with the duty-by-duty compliance position;
   (c) the indexed evidence bundle (Appendix D extracts, right-to-work records, SMS reports, payroll reconciliations);
   (d) the remediation action plan with completion evidence.

This response is authorised and signed by the Authorising Officer named on the licence. The sponsor confirms the contents are true to the best of its knowledge and belief.