Sponsor Licence Granted Again After Previous Revocation Along With 20 CoS

We are proud to share another success story from NARA Solicitors. This case involved a long and complex journey to secure a sponsor licence for our client after a revocation, a wrongful refusal, and multiple rounds of legal representations over the course of more than a year.

Background

Our client, a care provider, had held a sponsor licence since August 2022. On 4 October 2024, the Home Office revoked the licence for a single reason: a Certificate of Sponsorship (CoS) had been assigned to a close relative of a director. Under the Sponsor Guidance (C1.38), SMS users must not assign a CoS to close relatives. The Home Office treated this as a serious failure of sponsorship duties.

Challenging the Revocation

On 11 October 2024, we submitted a Pre-Action Protocol (PAP) for judicial review, which was received by the PAP team on 14 October 2024. We sought reconsideration of the decision, arguing that it was procedurally unfair because our client was not given an opportunity to respond before the revocation decision was made.

On 25 October 2024, the Secretary of State maintained the decision. Our client then initiated a claim for judicial review in the High Court, making the following arguments:

• The decision-making process was procedurally unfair because the Home Office did not give our client the opportunity to explain why the breach should not have been treated as serious. Although the breach was admitted, it should not have resulted in revocation.
• There was a breach of the Tameside duty to conduct reasonable enquiries.
• The Home Office failed to carry out a global assessment or consider downgrading the licence instead of revoking it. We highlighted the impact on 14 sponsored workers and their dependants, as well as vulnerable service users. Our client had a positive compliance history, and the breach occurred during serious and compassionate personal circumstances affecting the responsible director.

On 7 January 2025, the sponsor licence was reinstated to suspended status, and our client was given 20 days to respond to the Home Office’s ongoing concerns. A full response was submitted on 27 January 2025.

Despite this, the licence was revoked again on 25 March 2025. We submitted a PAP on 8 April 2025 seeking withdrawal of the revocation and reinstatement of the licence. The Home Office responded on 6 May 2025, maintaining their decision.

We then submitted a further PAP on 12 May 2025, challenging the 12 month cooling off period and requesting it be waived so our client could submit a fresh sponsor licence application without delay, taking into account the best interests of service users and existing staff.

The Critical PAP Response

The PAP response dated 22 May 2025 proved to be a turning point. While the Home Office maintained the 12 month cooling off period, it confirmed that the period ran from the date of the first revocation on 4 October 2024. Based on this confirmation, our client decided not to pursue judicial review and instead waited for the cooling off period to expire before applying again.

The Home Office Error

Our client submitted a fresh sponsor licence application on 6 October 2025 with all supporting documents. On 23 October 2025, the Home Office requested further documents and scheduled a Digital Compliance Check for 24 November 2025. The requested documents were submitted on 27 October 2025.

On 5 December 2025, a refusal letter was issued. The sole reason for refusal was that the application had allegedly been submitted during the cooling off period, citing paragraphs L9.18 and L9.19.

This decision was clearly incorrect. It directly contradicted the Home Office’s own PAP response of 22 May 2025. Our client had a legitimate expectation that the application could be submitted once the cooling off period ended. The Home Office failed to consider its earlier correspondence and the detailed history provided in the application.

We submitted a further PAP on 11 December 2025, arguing that the Home Office was bound by its previous position and that the principle of promissory estoppel applied.

The Outcome

On 23 December 2025, the Home Office accepted that an error had been made. They confirmed the refusal decision was incorrect, agreed to waive the cooling off period, refund the application fee, and expedite a fresh application without requiring a priority fee.

A new application was submitted on the same day, with the PAP response attached.

On 12 January 2026, the Home Office confirmed the application was complex and would exceed the standard eight week timeframe. We submitted another PAP on 14 January 2026, relying on the legitimate expectation created by the Home Office’s agreement to expedite the application.

On 19 January 2026, a Digital Compliance Check was scheduled for 6 March 2026, along with a request for further documents. The documents were submitted on 20 January, and we requested an earlier inspection date. The Home Office agreed.

On 22 January 2026, the Home Office confirmed that the application would be expedited but still subject to full consideration under the Sponsor Guidance.

The Digital Compliance Check took place on 9 February 2026. Later that same day, our client received the decision: the sponsor licence was granted, and all 20 Certificates of Sponsorship requested were approved in full.

If your sponsor licence has been revoked or refused, or if you believe the Home Office has made an error, timely legal advice is essential. At NARA Solicitors, we handle sponsor licence applications, compliance audits, suspensions, and revocations with proven expertise. Get in touch today.

Hear Directly from the client

Key Takeaways

• Home Office decisions can contain errors and must be reviewed carefully against previous correspondence.
• Legitimate expectation arising from clear Home Office communications can be a strong basis for challenge.
• Persistent and structured legal representations can succeed even after multiple refusals.
• Maintaining detailed records of all Home Office correspondence is critical.

Also read: Sponsor Licence Refusal Overturned with PAP: How a Care Company Succeeded with NARA Solicitors’ Assistance

Also read: A Care Provider with 50 plus Sponsored Employees Gets Their Sponsor Licence Back After Revocation

If your organisation is facing similar challenges with sponsor licence revocations or refusals, NARA Solicitors is here to help. Our experienced team is ready to provide clear, strategic advice.

Book a consultation with NARA Solicitors today.