Latest Posts

Does the Authorising Officer Need to Be a Settled Worker? Understanding Key Personnel in Sponsor Licence Applications

At Quastels, we regularly advise businesses preparing to apply for a UK sponsor licence. One of the most common questions we receive is whether all key personnel, especially the Authorising Officer, must be settled workers. The short answer is not necessarily!

Understanding the roles and requirements of your key personnel is crucial to a smooth sponsor licence application process. Here’s what employers need to know.

Who are the Key Personnel?

When applying for a sponsor licence, your business must nominate three key personnel:

1. Authorising Officer – a senior person within your organisation who has overall responsibility for your activity as a licensed sponsor. This person should attend interviews requested by the Home Office during pre-licence assessments or post-licence compliance audits.
2. Key Contact – your main point of contact with UKVI.
3. Level 1 User – a person within your organisation who is responsible for your day-to-day activity as a licensed sponsor, including assigning and requesting Certificates of Sponsorship (CoS) and reporting worker activity or changes to your organisation.

While these roles can sometimes be held by the same person, each comes with its own eligibility criteria, especially regarding immigration status.

Must the Authorising Officer be a Settled Worker?

Your key personnel must usually be a paid member or an office holder from within your organisation. However, the Authorising Officer does not need to be a settled worker. In fact, this role can be filled by someone with a valid visa, such as an Innovator Founder or Global Talent visa, or other eligible immigration categories, such as a PBS dependent visa or spouse visa, provided they meet the suitability criteria and so not have a conflict of interest (e.g. being sponsored by the same company for which they will act).

However they must:

• Be based in the UK;
• Have sufficient authority to oversee the sponsorship process;
• Have a valid National Insurance Number (unless on exemption situation);
• Not be a contractor or consultant who is contracted for a specific purpose.

The Role That Must be a Settled Worker: Initial Level 1 User (exemption may apply)

The critical restriction lies with the Level 1 User at the time of application. UKVI requires the initial Level 1 User to be a settled worker. This individual manages the licence on the Sponsor Management System (SMS) and handles compliance reporting.

After the licence is granted, additional Level 1 and Level 2 Users can be appointed, and in some cases, may include those on visas.

However, the ‘settled worker’ requirement for the Initial Level User is exempt if your Authorising Officer has valid entry clearance or permission to stay in the UK as a certain visa category, such as Innovator Founder, Global Talent or UK Expansion worker. They are allowed to self-manage their sponsor licence as part of their business operations.

Get Expert Advice

The sponsor licence application process can be complex, particularly when it comes to structuring your team of key personnel. Making mistakes can lead to delays or even refusal.

If you need help with your sponsor licence application, or if you are unsure who can act as your Authorising Officer or Level 1 User, or which immigration status qualifies as ‘settled worker’, our expert immigration team is here to help.

Read More

What Went Wrong? A Case Study in Employee-Manager Miscommunication

In this video, Employment Partner Dipti Shah examines a real-life breakdown in the employee-manager relationship, through a WhatsApp thread. With over 25 years of experience advising both businesses and individuals, Dipti has seen how common oversights such as insufficient training and inadequate support for managers, can escalate into avoidable conflict. In this case study, she dissects what went wrong at each stage of a workplace conversation and outlines what should have happened to preserve a productive and respectful working relationship.

The Retention Crisis

In the UK, nearly one in four workers is planning to quit in 2025. Staff retention is becoming an increasingly urgent issue, with workplace trends like “Revenge Quitting” and “Quiet Quitting” taking their toll on morale and continuity. The financial impact is significant: the average cost of turnover for an employee earning £25,000 or more £30,614, according to Oxford Economics. Poor management plays a central role in this trend. When employees have both a great manager and a great leader, their commitment to stay rises to 94%. But that figure drops sharply, to 35%, with a good manager and poor leader, and to just 19% when both leadership and management are lacking.

Case Study: What Went Wrong?

In the featured case study, a manager asked an employee to reschedule their annual leave at the last minute to attend a client meeting. The employee offered a compromise by suggesting they dial in remotely during their holiday, but the manager deemed this insufficient. What followed was a prolonged back-and-forth, culminating in the manager threatening repercussions for the employee’s career. This situation underscores the pressures that managers themselves face, but also highlights the importance of managing client expectations and ensuring clear communication throughout all levels of the business. Without proper guidance, even well-meaning managers can make decisions that damage trust and morale.

Key Takeaways

Managers need just as much support as the teams they lead. To prevent breakdowns like this one, it is essential that newly promoted managers receive thorough training, both on the responsibilities of their new role and on how company policies should inform their management style. Employees are entitled to disconnect during their annual leave, and penalising them for exercising this right is unacceptable. Ultimately, a well-supported manager is far more likely to foster a positive, engaged, and committed team.

Read More

Managing Toxic Behaviour in the Workplace

Toxic employees in the workplace present a unique threat to businesses. Their behaviour pervades team dynamics, undermines the authority of managers, the efficiency of business operations and the wellbeing of fellow employees.

Identifying Common Types of Toxic Behaviour

Three common types of toxic behaviour include:

• The Complainer: This employee looks to find fault in almost every situation, spreads their negative energy amongst the team and dampens team morale.
• The Narcissist: This employee has an inflated sense of self-importance, they are overconfident, lack empathy and never take accountability or responsibility often deflecting from their own underperformance by pointing out other people’s mistakes.
• The Aggravator: This type of employee belittles, humiliates and insults others. They have a tendency to spread misinformation, gaslight and manipulate others. They may exclude people from meetings and projects under the guise of professionalism and their behaviour is often targeted towards a specific or small number of individuals.

The Consequences of Inaction

When managers fail to address such conduct swiftly and visibly, they risk appearing ineffective or inconsistent, further encouraging disruptive behaviour and disempowering those in leadership roles.

The Cultural Impact of Toxicity

Toxic behaviour is also a cultural contaminant as it spreads silently through gossip, cliques, and negativity, derailing strategic priorities. Collaboration between individuals and teams suffers over time, high-performing employees may disengage or exit altogether, leaving a vacuum filled with underperformance.

Preserving Trust and Confidence

In every employment relationship, there is an implied duty of ‘mutual trust and confidence.’ When there is a lack of early management intervention to tackle disruptive behaviour, employees may feel frustration and resentment resulting in disengagement or even resignation (which may itself, give rise to a claim of constructive dismissal).

Health, Wellbeing, and Legal Risks

A failure to tackle toxic behaviour could also amount to co-workers suffering heightened stress and anxiety leading to persistent or long-term sickness absences which could amount to a breach of the duty to provide a safe working environment.

As uncomfortable as it might be, employers must act swiftly to tackle disruptive behaviour remembering to follow the ACAS code of practice, acting consistently and proportionately in each case.

Considering Mental Health and Reasonable Adjustments

Where a mental health condition or disability may be a factor in the employee’s behaviour, reasonable adjustments must be considered. However, persistent inappropriate behaviour may justify formal warnings or dismissal if it undermined organisational harmony.

Why Early Intervention Matters

Toxic behaviour erodes more than morale – it compromises authority, productivity and the retention of valuable employees. Early management of such behaviour is essential to maintain a happy and productive workforce.

This article was published in the July/August 2025 edition of London Business Matters.

Please get in touch with our Employment team via the form below.

Read More