Right to Work share codes for supply staff: expiry, re-checks and common mistakes

Right to Work checks are one of the more mechanically simple compliance requirements to get right, and yet they are one of the most common gaps found across supply agency candidate pools, almost always because of the 90-day expiry on share codes rather than any misunderstanding of the underlying rule. This guide covers exactly how the share code system works, when a re-check is genuinely required, and the specific mistakes that create risk without anyone realising it at the time.

How share codes actually work

A share code is a temporary reference a candidate generates through the Home Office's online right to work checking service, which an employer or agency then uses to view the candidate's immigration status directly from the Home Office system. It is designed to replace physical document checks for individuals with digital status, and it produces a clear, verifiable outcome rather than relying on a copy of a passport or visa page that could be out of date or altered.

The code itself is only valid for 90 days from the point it is generated. If it is not used within that window, it expires and the candidate has to generate a new one. This catches agencies out specifically in the gap between a candidate being onboarded and the first placement actually going out, if there is a delay, the share code used at registration may no longer be valid by the time it is actually needed, and nobody necessarily notices until the check is attempted and fails.

For a supply agency working with dozens or hundreds of candidates who may sit in the pipeline for weeks before their first placement, this is not a marginal edge case, it is a routine part of the process that needs a deliberate answer, not an assumption that the original check still holds.

When a re-check is actually needed

The trigger for a re-check is not the passage of time on its own, it is whether the candidate's underlying right to work is time-limited. A candidate with settled status or indefinite leave to remain does not need a repeat check once the initial one is done properly. A candidate on a visa with an expiry date does need a follow-up check scheduled before that expiry, to maintain a continuous statutory excuse.

This distinction matters because the two dates get conflated constantly in practice. A consultant who diarises "re-check in 90 days" for every candidate, regardless of their actual status, ends up either running unnecessary repeat checks on candidates who do not need them, or, more dangerously, assuming a 90-day cadence is sufficient for a candidate whose visa actually expires sooner than that and needs closer monitoring.

What to record for every check

The fourth item is easy to skip and worth insisting on regardless. A note that says "RTW checked, fine" is not evidence, it is a claim. Retaining the actual output of the check, alongside the structured data above, is what turns a compliance record into something that will actually hold up under scrutiny.

The manual way to keep this data is a spreadsheet row per candidate with a calendar reminder for anyone on time-limited status; a system like scout. records the check outcome and underlying expiry date automatically and chases the re-check itself before the status lapses.

Common mistakes agencies make

• Using a share code generated at initial registration weeks or months before the actual placement, after it has expired
• Not distinguishing between candidates with time-limited status and those without, and so missing scheduled re-checks
• Recording that "Right to Work was checked" without keeping the outcome or the underlying expiry date
• No process for surfacing upcoming visa expiries before they lapse mid-placement
• Relying on candidates to proactively flag their own status changes
• Treating a single check at onboarding as sufficient for the entire duration of a relationship with the agency, regardless of how long that relationship runs

Each of these is avoidable with a simple tracking discipline: record the underlying expiry date (not just the check date) for every candidate with time-limited status, and set a reminder well ahead of that date rather than the share code's 90-day window. The agencies that get this wrong are rarely being careless, they simply have no systematic way to distinguish the handful of candidates who need active date-tracking from the majority who do not, so the ones who need it get missed in the noise.

Why this sits alongside your other compliance checks, not apart from them

Right to Work is often treated as a separate, one-off task completed at onboarding and then forgotten, while DBS and SCR tracking get ongoing attention because they are more visibly linked to safeguarding. In practice, all three need the same discipline: a clear record of what was checked, when, what it is tied to expiring, and a mechanism to flag that expiry before it becomes urgent. Splitting Right to Work into a separate, less-monitored process is exactly how it ends up being the compliance area most likely to lapse quietly.

A candidate pool of any meaningful size will always include a handful of people with time-limited status, and for a supply agency that pool is often larger than in permanent recruitment, simply because of who the roles attract. Treating those candidates as needing the same level of active tracking as a DBS renewal, not a lighter-touch, one-time check, closes the gap that catches most agencies out.

What this looks like day to day for a consultant desk

For a consultant managing a busy desk, the practical goal is that Right to Work never has to be actively thought about candidate by candidate. New candidates are checked and recorded at onboarding as a matter of routine. Anyone with a time-limited status is automatically flagged for a follow-up check ahead of their expiry, without the consultant needing to remember which candidates that applies to out of a pool that might run into the hundreds. That is the difference between a process that depends on individual diligence and one that depends on a system, and it is the difference between an occasional missed re-check and a genuinely reliable compliance record.

How scout. handles this

scout. tracks Right to Work status for every candidate in the pipeline, flags upcoming expiries before they become a placement risk, and keeps a clean audit record of every check carried out, so a candidate never ends up unplaceable because a visa re-check was missed. This sits alongside the same DBS and SCR tracking covered in our DBS checks guide and our Single Central Record guide.