The High Court’s decision in R (Hartford Care Group Limited) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWHC 3308 has significant implications for care providers and the Home Office alike. While the ruling found that the Home Office acted unfairly in rejecting 70 Defined Certificates of Sponsorship (DCoS) applications, it does not mean that the court has ordered the Home Office to grant those allocations. In practice, Hartford Care can reapply, but any new application will be assessed under a potentially stricter and more demanding process.
This decision creates a double-edged outcome—it highlights unfair hurdles faced by care providers while also prompting the Home Office to reinforce its oversight, potentially making sponsorship applications harder in the long run.
The court ruled that this requirement was unreasonable because such contracts are not standard. However, this ruling does not mean that Hartford Care or other providers will have an easier path to securing sponsorship in the future.
The court’s role was to decide whether the Home Office’s reasoning was lawful—not to dictate the outcome of sponsorship applications. The Home Office retains the power to tighten its policies and demand alternative forms of proof, meaning future applications could face even tougher scrutiny.
This ruling presents both risks and opportunities for care providers:
Higher Burden of Proof: The Home Office may now introduce new, more detailed requirements for proving vacancies exist, possibly requiring financial records, projected demand, or alternative contracts beyond local authority agreements.
More Compliance Audits: Having lost this case, the Home Office might increase site visits and document checks to prevent perceived misuse of the system.
Slower and More Cautious Approvals: Given the legal challenge, the Home Office could become more cautious in approving DCoS applications, leading to delays and more rejections for care providers.
Improved Transparency: Care providers now have a legal precedent to challenge unfair refusals if they are based on unreasonable criteria.
Potential for Policy Reform: The government may be pushed to review and refine its sponsorship system to ensure rules reflect the real hiring practices of the care sector.
Real-World Success: Avoiding Court and Winning Sponsorship Allocations
While the legal battle over sponsorship refusals can take a year or more, our practice has successfully helped care providers secure additional CoS requests without having to go to court.
None of these care providers had contracts guaranteeing working hours, yet we navigated the process effectively and got results quickly. Instead of waiting months for a court ruling, we have helped care providers crush this part of the process efficiently.
Hartford Care can now submit a fresh application, but it will not automatically be approved. Instead, the Home Office will assess it under its latest criteria, which may be stricter than before.
This case signals a turning point: while it exposes flaws in the Home Office’s decision-making process, it also alerts the government to potential gaps in enforcement, leading to tougher regulation.
If you are a care provider struggling with sponsorship applications, you don’t have to go to court to get results.