Asim Amin

Founder & CEO at Plumm | Empowering Minds & Building Thriving Workplaces | Passionate Mental Health Advocate

I’m the Founder & CEO of Plumm, the all-in-one HR platform with mental health at its core.

HR today is fragmented, companies juggle payroll, performance, compliance, and wellbeing across too many tools. Plumm brings it all into one platform, helping organisations cut costs, save time, and look after their people. Because no HR strategy is complete without mental health.

Plumm started as a mental health solution and has grown into a full-service HR platform, used by companies worldwide. Our mission is clear: make workplaces more productive, inclusive, and human.

I’m also the host of the Immigrants Building Companies Podcast, where I speak with immigrant entrepreneurs who’ve built companies against the odds, sharing lessons on resilience, growth, and leadership.

If you’d like to:
🚀 Book a demo with Plumm: https://eu1.hubs.ly/H0mJb040 
🎙️ Discuss podcasts, speaking, or media features: taslynn@heyplumm.com

International Trade Program

Poor mental health costs UK employers up to £56 billion a year.

And yet, when employers invest even just £1 in preventative employee wellbeing, they see an average return of £5.30.

We’ve seen case after case, that happier employees make for a healthier business.

It’s why we developed Plumm: a seamless all-in-one, evidence-backed mental wellbeing solution for employers and their teams.

We support your team through our global and diverse pool over 200 accredited therapists and coaches, who can cater to their individual needs, preferences, and circumstances, regardless of where they are in their wellbeing journey.

Whether they can benefit from group learning, need professional help and personalised 1:1 therapy or coaching, or self-help resources, we've got it covered.

Ready to level up your team's wellbeing? 👉 https://www.plummhealth.com/request-demo

DO NOT hire people who are good on paper.

The strongest hires I’ve seen recently weren’t the neatest on paper anyway.
A few gaps.
Not every box ticked.
Some rough edges.

But when things shifted, they didn’t stall.
That’s what stood out.
Work is changing faster than job descriptions can keep up.
By the end of this decade, around 39% of the skills people use today won’t be relevant anymore.
Most roles won’t disappear.
They’ll mutate.
Which makes “tool knowledge” a short-lived advantage.

In practice, I’ve learned to watch for different signals:
Who asks better questions once the brief gets fuzzy.
Who notices second-order problems, not just the task in front of them.
Who can disagree without becoming defensive.
Who recovers quickly after being wrong.

Those things don’t show up on a CV.
And they matter more when pressure is real.

Nearly 6 in 10 people will need reskilling in the coming years.
Yet the global workforce is still expected to grow.
So the edge isn’t experience alone.
It’s adaptability over time.

You can train systems.
Rewrite processes.
Roll out new tools.
What’s harder to build is judgement.
Curiosity under uncertainty.
The ability to stay useful when the rules change.

As automation takes care of the predictable, these qualities surface.
Not because they’re “soft skills”
But because they’re the difference between keeping up
and actually moving forward.

undefined undefined

Founder & CEO at Plumm | Speaker | Advisor

You’ll spend £4 a day on a latte without blinking.
But £27 a month for your health?
“Too expensive.”

That’s roughly what a WHOOP costs.
And no, not everyone needs a WHOOP.
It could just as easily be a gym membership. Plenty in the UK cost £20–£30 a month.

The number isn’t really the point.
It’s where the line gets drawn.

Some spending feels automatic.
Other spending gets questioned, even when it’s about your own health, energy, and how you want to feel day to day.

That says a lot about priorities.

Because health isn’t a one-off decision.
You don’t choose it once.
You choose it in small ways, over and over again.

Those choices compound.

And one day you realise how you’ve been feeling for a while now
more tired, less resilient, lower energy
or the opposite.

That’s why what you prioritise today matters more than it seems 👌🏼

PS: I still love coffee, but I’d rather have it home ;)

I didn’t wake up one day and decide to rethink health.
Life did it for me.

What surprised me wasn’t the moment itself.
It was what changed afterwards.

How quickly your definition of “healthy” shifts when it’s no longer abstract.
When it’s not about performance, or numbers, or discipline.
You start paying attention to different things.
How stress shows up in your body.
How sleep affects your mood, not just your energy.
How recovery isn’t optional if you want consistency.

Longevity stops being about adding years.
It becomes about protecting capacity.

The ability to think clearly under pressure.
To regulate stress instead of living in it.
To train, work, and live without constantly borrowing from tomorrow.

I’m reading Outlive at the moment.
What resonates most isn’t the science, it’s the reminder that decline accumulates through small decisions repeated daily.
Ignoring signals.
Normalising fatigue.
Treating rest as a reward instead of a requirement.

Perspective changes how you move through life.
You become less reactive.
More intentional.

Longevity, in that sense, isn’t about fear.
It’s about responsibility.
And once life forces that lesson,
you don’t approach health the same way again.

BREAKING 🚨 Europe just made its boldest move for founders in decades.

Yesterday at Davos, Ursula von der Leyen announced EU–INC.
A single, truly European company structure.
This matters. A lot.
For years, Europe hasn’t lacked talent, it’s lacked simplicity.
27 countries.
27 rulebooks.
Different equity rules.
Different compliance hoops.

So founders did the rational thing.
They incorporated elsewhere.
(Usually Delaware)

EU–INC changes the equation.
One corporate framework across the EU.
Incorporate online in 48 hours.
No mandatory notaries.
One legal entity, valid in all 27 countries.
Taxes and labour laws stay national.

The corporate layer goes European. That distinction is critical.
Because Europe’s biggest problem was never ambition. It was friction.

Scaling shouldn’t mean:
– Setting up new entities per country
– Reworking equity structures
– Burning seed capital on legal fees

If executed properly, EU–INC could unlock:
– Faster company creation
– Founder-friendly equity
– Easier cross-border scaling
– A real Single Market, not a theoretical one

Most importantly?
This is the first time Europe has clearly chosen builders over bureaucracy.
Execution will be everything.
Speed will matter.
Consistency will matter.
But the signal is loud and clear: Europe is finally building for founders 🇪🇺🚀

Perfection is how average founders justify being slow.

I’ve done it.
Watched others do it.
Same outcome every time.

Early on, I hid behind “not ready yet”.
What I really meant was: “I don’t want the market to tell me I’m wrong.”
So I delayed.
Refined.
Overthought.
And nothing happened.

In the first 3–5 years, your product isn’t supposed to be good.
It’s supposed to move.
Because movement creates:
- feedback
- revenue
- momentum
Perfection creates meetings.

I’ve launched things that made me cringe.
They still taught me more in a week than months of planning ever did.
Most features I was obsessed with? Nobody cared.
The market told me that. Fast.

And the reality is, most founders fail because they wait until they feel confident.
Confidence doesn’t come before action.
It comes after exposure.

If you’re still polishing:
You’re not protecting quality.
You’re protecting ego.
Speed doesn’t mean sloppy.
It means honest.
And honesty compounds faster than perfection ever will.

There’s one kind of decision
I never got used to making.

It wasn’t about direction or priorities.
It was about people, and knowing that whatever I chose would follow them home.

Later, it gets called a pivot. 
In the moment, it felt like sitting across from someone and realising you were about to change something you couldn’t take back.

I’ve been laid off before. 
I remember the shock, the quiet afterwards, the way it made everything outside of work feel suddenly uncertain.

I’ve also had to be the one delivering that news.
What stays with me isn’t what I said.
It’s what I saw.
The pause before someone replied.
The way they nodded, even when it hurt.
How often they asked about everyone else instead of themselves.

There wasn’t anger.
There was care.

People checking in on teammates.
Worrying about how the team would manage.
Trying to make sense of what came next.

That kind of response doesn’t come from policies or values written on a wall.
It comes from how people have been treated all along.

You don’t really understand leadership when things are moving fast and going well.
You understand it when something breaks and there is nowhere to hide.

We talk a lot about growth.
But responsibility shows up differently.
It sits with you long after the meeting ends.
Long after the decision is made.

Those moments are uncomfortable, and they should be.
Because once the decision is made, there’s nowhere else for it to land but on you.
You don’t get to soften it with language or hide behind process.
All you can do is stand in it, be clear, be honest, and make sure the people affected are treated with as much care as possible.
Not because it looks good.
Because you owe them that.

If things get hard → raise.
If growth slows → raise.
If you’re unsure → raise.

There’s a weird default in startups…
Everyone’s obsessed with raising.
But no one really stops to ask the boring question:

What exactly are we trying to buy with this money?

Not the pitch-deck version.
The one you’re honest about when it’s just you and the numbers.

Some of the best decisions I’ve made at Plumm didn’t happen after a round.
They happened when there was little (sometimes VERY little) money in the bank.
Because that’s when you’re forced to think differently.
You get creative.
You stop hiding behind “we’ll fix it after the raise”.
You really ask: what actually moves the needle?

Scarcity sharpens you.
It forces out-of-the-box thinking.
It makes you ruthless about priorities.
Sales matters more.
Focus matters more.
Every spend suddenly has to earn its place.

Somewhere along the way, we’ve been sold this fundraiser lifestyle.
The press.
The LinkedIn posts.
The idea that raising equals success.

But money isn’t success.
It’s just fuel.
And fuel on a bad engine doesn’t fix the engine.

There were moments where raising felt like the obvious next step.
And then we realised it wasn’t.
The better question became:
How do we push revenue?
How do we sell better?
What can we do without more capital?

Raising can make sense, I’m not anti-fundraising, but raising by default is a trap.
And sometimes, having less is exactly what makes you a better founder.
Because when there’s no safety net, your instincts show up properly.

STOP focusing on your personal brand.

(I know, coming from someone who posts 5x week lol)
But hear me out.

A lot of people start building their personal brands, and then visibility comes:
the likes, the comments, the impressions, DMs
you somehow get momentum

but something doesn’t quite add up..
All those vanity numbers..all the likes, all the followers..
CAN’T fix a sh*t product
(or service)

The issue is that attention doesn’t give you breathing room. It does the opposite.
Once people are watching, they’re not just reacting to your ideas. They’re experiencing everything. The product. The service. The follow-up. The bits you were hoping to fix later.

If that experience is weak, people don’t argue about it. 
They just disappear.

I’ve seen people with impressive visibility struggle to keep customers.
I’ve also seen founders with no presence at all build businesses people stick with because the thing actually does what it says.

A personal brand doesn’t create trust. 
It spends it.

Does that mean you should not work on your personal brand? Absolutely not, you should.
But that shouldn’t be your priority.

Building an amazing product should be.
Building a fantastic service your customers can’t stop talking about should be.

Once you have that, then you can build your personal brand on top.
Just get your priorities straight.

And btw, sometimes the best move is to shut up, build properly, and let people talk later 👋🏻

The worst way to start a business:

	1.	Decide you want to be a founder before knowing what you want to build (because you like the “lifestyle”..)
	2.	Reverse-engineer a product that sounds good to investors, not customers
	3.	Build an MVP to justify a deck, not to solve a problem
	4.	Avoid talking to users because “we already know the market”
	5.	Call early confusion “vision”
	6.	Ship features no one asked for because they look impressive in demos
	7.	Measure success by meetings booked, not problems solved
	8.	Sell discounts as “traction”
	9.	Hire sales to compensate for unclear value
	10.	Blame sales when customers don’t convert
	11.	Add more features instead of fixing the core problem
	12.	Call lack of focus “moving fast”
	13.	Run internal meetings about growth instead of external conversations with users
	14.	Burn cash to protect the narrative
	15.	Pivot quietly, rebrand loudly 
	16.	Tell the team profitability comes after scale
	17.	Run out of time, not ideas
	18.	Buy PR articles to boost you ego

Remember: Build something people would miss if it disappeared.

“Go to HR.”

People hear it the same way they heard “go to the headteacher’s office” at school.
Somewhere you end up once things have already gone wrong.

That perception didn’t come out of nowhere.

HR usually gets involved after weeks of small things being left unsaid. 
Feedback is usually avoided. 
And, expectations are left vague. 
Managers hoping issues fix themselves. 
By the time HR shows up, there’s history, emotion, and momentum.

From the outside, HR looks like enforcement.
Inside, HR is dealing with accumulated silence.

Most problems don’t start as formal issues. 
They start as ordinary moments that weren’t handled early, when the cost was low.

When managers treat HR as the place difficult conversations go, people learn to associate HR with punishment instead of support.

If you want HR to feel human, managers have to do the human work first.

Clear expectations early. 
Feedback while there’s still room to adjust. Intervention before frustration hardens.

HR isn’t the headteacher’s office.
It just inherits what wasn’t handled sooner.

If your best people are leaving..
it’s probably NOT about MONEY.

It’s about growth.
Companies that invest seriously in L&D see up to 50% higher retention.
Yet most still treat learning as a perk - or worse, a cost.

That’s not a people problem.
That’s a leadership one.

High performers don’t quit bad jobs, they quit stagnation.
When people stop learning, they don’t argue.
They don’t disengage loudly.
They don’t ask for more.
They just start planning their exit.

The data is blunt:
- 94% would stay longer with better development
- Growth opportunities now outrank pay for many senior performers
- Teams with weak learning cultures lose their best talent first

And yet we keep trying to fix retention with:
Bonuses.
Perks.
Offsites.

None of those solve stagnation.
Real L&D is whether someone leaves a year later with better judgment, broader scope, and more confidence than when they arrived.
If the answer is no, they’ll leave.
Eventually.

That’s why we don’t treat L&D as HR hygiene.
We treat it as leadership responsibility.
Because people don’t stay loyal to companies.
They stay loyal to growth.

"Work smart, not hard."
That's how people justify being LAZY.

And it usually comes from those who have never done the hard part first.

At the start of anything new (a role, a company, a team, a product) you simply don't know enough. You haven't seen enough. You haven't broken enough things.

Saying "hard work isn't needed" at the beginning is complete BS.
You're trying to avoid building the foundation.

The only way you learn what matters is by putting the bloody work in.
Getting close to the details.
Seeing where time gets wasted.
Feeling where decisions hurt.

That's how judgement is built. Only after that do systems make sense.
Only then can you remove effort without removing understanding.
Only then does "working smart" actually mean something.

Skipping that phase doesn't make you efficient. It makes you fragile.
You end up managing ideas instead of reality, faking confidence until shit hits the fan.

Every good operator I've met has done the same:
Deep into the execution
Understood the gaps
Simplified ops
Built a system to scale

In that order. And repeat.

So yes, work smart.
But earn it.

Because if you haven't done the hard work yet, you're not being smart.
You're just hoping.
(and being LAZY)

2026 HR trends you need to know:

1. HR will end up owning problems no one else wants
Because they sit between leadership intent and lived reality.

2. AI will finally expose how little most companies understand their own workforce
HR has been saying this quietly for years.

3. “Hiring shortages” will keep being blamed on the market
When the issue is internal talent stuck in the wrong places.

4. Job frameworks will keep getting rewritten
Work will keep changing faster.

5. Hybrid work will stay unresolved
Because many leaders still don’t know what good work looks like.

6. Burnout won’t be treated as a crisis
Until it hits delivery timelines.

7. As usual, HR will be looped in late,
then blamed early.

HR isn’t late. 
It’s just been convenient to ignore.

Cognitive decline starts earlier than what you think 
(and if you are 30+, you should be reading this..)

Yep, the decline starts in your early 30s..
way earlier than you expected, right?

And interesting enough, the other day I was reading how some studies put the difference between people who actively challenge their brains and those who don’t at 2–3 years of memory decline.
In some cases, closer to a decade…

So, I was like “Hold on a minute.. I need to do something about it..”

So I’ve been trying to go back to basics lately.
And yesterday, instead of doing anything particularly “CEO-productive”,
I did a puzzle.
No phone nearby.
No background noise.

What surprised me wasn’t that it was calming.
It was how unfamiliar it felt to concentrate like that.
Holding pieces in my head.
Remembering what didn’t fit.
Staying with the problem instead of jumping to something else.
That kind of effort used to be normal.
Now it’s rare.

The data on brain longevity is pretty consistent on one thing:
it’s not about consuming more information.
It’s about effortful thinking.
Puzzles, crosswords, problem-solving tasks - they show up again and again in studies on cognitive reserve.
They force the brain to slow down and work.

Kids do this instinctively.
Adults engineer it out of their lives.
Shortcuts.
Assistance.
Constant input.
The brain adapts.

I’m not claiming puzzles are a solution to anything.
But they’re a good reminder.
If brain health matters - not just now, but over time -
it’s worth paying attention to how often we actually ask our brains to do something hard.

Sometimes going back to basics isn’t regression.
It’s maintenance 👌🏼

PS: What was your weekend “brain activity”?

You can’t make an A-player out of a B-player.

I know people hate hearing that.
I used to, too.

For a long time, I thought the right coaching, enough time, or “the right environment” would change people. It doesn’t. Not in the way founders hope it will.

I’ve tried. 
More than once. 
And every time, it cost the business.

Ash didn’t step up because he was promoted. 
He was promoted because he was already acting like it mattered to him personally.

No one had to chase him. 
No one had to spell things out twice. 
No one had to convince him to care.

He already did.
That’s the difference.
Some people feel ownership naturally. 
Others wait to be told what to do, how to do it, and when it’s “enough.”

You can train skills. 
You can’t train that internal bar.

At some point, I stopped trying to turn the wrong people into the right ones. And started backing the people who were already wired differently.

Everything got easier after that. 
Decisions. 
Trust. 
Progress.

Ash is a good example of this.
He is THAT person who takes responsibility even when no one is watching.
He cares.

If this makes you uncomfortable, good. 
It should.

PS: Choose carefully. 
And stop lying to yourself about potential.

Everyone wants the quick win.
The overnight success.
The shortcut.
The “one good idea”.
What they don’t want is the part before it.

It took me 10 businesses
and 27 years
to get here.

Because that’s how long it took to actually understand what works.
Most of those businesses didn’t fail, they just… faded.
Wrong timing.
Thin margins.
People problems.
Ideas that sounded good but didn’t survive reality.

Each one taught me something small and painfully specific.
How fragile cash really is.
How quickly momentum dies.
How often “almost ready” is just fear in disguise.

There was no big moment where it all clicked, just fewer mistakes over time.
The Plumm people see now isn’t the result of a breakthrough, it’s the result of repetition, and the sum of all the hard lessons learnt in those 27 years.

Everyone wants the result.
Very few want the years it takes to recognise one.
That gap is where most people disappear.

We all say we hate talking about money.
What we really hate is being exposed.

Because money has a way of cutting through the BS.

The biggest mistake I see some founders make is stepping away from numbers too early.

Because staying close to revenue forces uncomfortable conversations.

Sales conversations.
Pricing conversations.
Reality conversations.

Top line tells you if anyone actually wants what you’re building.
Bottom line tells you whether the way you’re building it is sustainable.

Ignore either, and you start lying to yourself.

I’ve seen founders obsess over growth while margins slowly collapse.

I’ve seen “strong pipelines” with no cash to show for it.

By the time they re-engage with the numbers, the options are already limited.

Spreadsheets aren’t finance work. They’re where the truth shows up first.

If you know your numbers, you feel in control.
If you don’t, you call it stress.

That’s the difference.

“Is there still a future in HR?”

That question keeps coming up because a lot of HR work is disappearing in plain sight.

AI is already handling the volume work.
Questions. Admin. Scheduling. Screening.
The things that kept teams busy and roles full.

That part isn’t coming back.

But much of that work was never the value.

For years, HR became the place unfinished thinking was sent.
Vague roles. Avoided conversations. Poor decisions dressed up as process.

AI exposes that.

Because once the admin goes, what’s left is judgement.
And judgement is harder work.

The future of HR belongs to people who can design work that still makes sense as organisations change.
Intervene early, before silence turns into resentment.
Support leaders when there is no policy to hide behind.
Read patterns humans feel long before data shows them.

AI can answer questions.
It can’t rebuild trust.
It can’t decide what “fair” looks like in a messy situation.
It can’t carry the weight of a hard call.

Teams using tools like Plumm are already shifting this way.
Less firefighting.
More thinking.

So yes, there is a future in HR.

But it belongs to those willing to step away from owning process
and into helping organisations make better decisions about work.

Plumm

“Graduates should work for free.”

That’s not a hot take.
It’s exploiting the market while pretending it’s common sense.

What it really says is this:
We want output without accountability.
We want talent without doing the work of building it.

Entry-level roles were never meant to be efficient, they were meant to be formative.
You hired for raw potential.
You tolerated mistakes.
You invested time before expecting judgement.
That’s how people got good.

Now?
Many companies want graduates who arrive finished.
Tool-ready. Confident. Immediately useful.

And when they don’t?
The gap gets filled with unpaid labour.
“Trials.”
“Exposure.”
Open-ended internships with no real intent to hire.

The cost moves from the balance sheet to the individual.
Income disappears.
Waiting becomes the price of entry.
At that point, talent isn’t about ability, it’s about who can afford to be patient.

AI is making this worse.
The low-risk learning work is vanishing.
Junior roles are fewer.
The remaining ones demand judgement before judgement has time to exist.
Instead of redesigning how people grow, many companies opt out altogether.

Pay matters.
Not as a moral argument.
As a forcing function.
Pay creates obligation.
Clear expectations.
Feedback.
Actual management.

Without pay, there is no graduate role.
There is only unpaid labour with nicer language.

If you hire graduates, you’re making a choice.
Either you build capability, or you extract value and avoid responsibility.

We’ve always paid interns, because serious companies invest in the pipeline they depend on.

If you hire graduates, pay them.
That’s the line between developing people
and taking advantage of them.

He travelled the world building businesses. 
Then he came back to the UK.

James went to China at 18. 
1997. 
Six months to teach English.

He picked China because it felt hard. 
New system. 
New rules. 
Nothing familiar.
That choice shaped everything.

Working abroad showed him that business isn’t just about competence. 
It’s about knowing how things really work. 
What’s said. 
What isn’t.

In China, contracts were flexible. 
In the Philippines, age mattered more than ability. 
At 26, being young made selling harder.

He moved across Asia through a management programme. 
Different countries. Different businesses. 
Sometimes with a week’s notice.

Family brought him home.
He built a bike marketplace. 
It looked successful. 
Awards. Partners. Press.
But it didn’t work. 
Ethical supply couldn’t scale.

When his family needed him, he stepped in. 
He grew the recruitment business. 
88 people. Five countries. 
Sold in 2020.

He’s not an immigrant in the UK. 
But immigration shaped everything he built.

Today, he works with founders who are already carrying a lot. 
Helping them think more clearly. 
And make better decisions under pressure.

🎙️ Watch the full episode below. 
Link in the comment section.

I help Seed & Series A founders unlock their £10M+ business | Exited CEO | Host of The Peer Effect Podcast

Hi, I’m Laura, Founder & CEO at Synergy Immigration Solutions 👋🏻

As the daughter of immigrants, I understand the challenges and opportunities that come with moving to a new country. That’s why I’m passionate about helping people build successful businesses by supporting them in sponsoring overseas talent. I also love assisting skilled workers and entrepreneurs in achieving their dream of starting a new life in the UK.

I founded Synergy with a vision to bring something different to the immigration sector, offering a personable, honest, and responsive approach. We specialise in business immigration, helping companies secure the right talent while also supporting individuals navigating their immigration journey.

Whether you’re looking to grow your business with overseas talent or need guidance on your personal UK immigration journey, I’d love to help. 

Get in touch 👉🏼 https://calendly.com/d/cm4s-xmb-7hd/intro-call

Laura Notaro

The UK has been quietly losing global tech talent. 
This week, it signalled it wants them back.

Yesterday at Davos, Rachel Reeves highlighted visa changes aimed squarely at the pain points founders and researchers have been raising for years: cost, delays, and friction.

Key proposals include:
- Refunding visa fees for researchers in areas like quantum and AI
- Speeding up sponsor licences for qualifying companies
- Offering incentives for people joining high-growth deep-tech firms

For the quantum sector, this could be transformative.
Specialists in areas like error correction are scarce, slowing commercial progress.
Making it cheaper and faster to bring in world-class talent isn’t a “nice to have”, it’s a direct enabler of growth and scaling.

Beyond quantum, there’s a bigger signal here:
the UK is trying to be genuinely welcoming to frontier talent, not just in slogans, but by fixing the practical blockers that push people elsewhere.

Of course, delivery is everything.
But if even half of these proposals land properly, they could make a real difference for UK tech.

Founder and CEO at Synergy Immigration Solutions | Helping you start your immigration journey in the UK

The UK Skilled Worker visa rules may be heading for another reset.

If you employ or advise sponsored workers, this one matters.

The Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) has published its Review of Salary Requirements.

It isn’t policy yet.
But it’s a strong signal of where the Skilled Worker route may be heading.

Here are the shifts that could matter most 👇
1️⃣ Occupation salaries back to the 25th percentile
MAC recommends lowering occupation-specific “going rates” from the median back to the 25th percentile - closer to real-world pay in many roles.

⚠️ Important nuance: this sits alongside a recommendation to keep the 
general Skilled Worker salary threshold at £41,700.

2️⃣ A clearer New Entrant rate
A single proposed New Entrant salary of £33,400.
More clarity. More predictability for workforce planning.
MAC also flags that the current 4-year New Entrant period is tight, especially if higher thresholds remain - suggesting eligibility may need to run longer in practice.

3️⃣ PhD salary discount: recommended for removal
MAC recommends scrapping the PhD discount altogether.
Universities and research-heavy employers near thresholds may need to rethink pay structures.

4️⃣ Temporary Shortage List - with guardrails
Shortage won’t mean “cheap sponsorship”.
MAC recommends:
No salary discounts for TSL roles
Occupation thresholds staying at the median
Any lower general threshold not dropping below £30,900
The aim: avoid downward pressure on wages.

5️⃣ No regional salary bands
MAC does not support regional pay variation.
Consistency over complexity - even if lower-cost regions feel the squeeze.

6️⃣ Annual salary uprating
A move away from irregular, disruptive jumps.
Regular updates = more predictability for employers.

And a clear reminder:
👉 Employers are not legally required to sponsor workers.
Sponsorship should align with business strategy, not obligation.
Why this matters?

This review is about fairness, predictability, fiscal impact, and the long-term shape of the Skilled Worker route.

Worth reading now - not just when changes land.

Thinking about applying for a UK Spouse Visa?
Here are a few tips I wish more people heard before starting 👇🏻

1️⃣ Show your relationship as it really is
Not just certificates. Everyday proof matters more.
Shared bills. Messages. Photos. Trips. How you support each other.
Consistency beats staged gestures.

2️⃣ Sort the financial requirement early
If the sponsor meets £29,000+, make sure you’re using the correct income category and evidence before applying.
If relying on employment income, the payslips, bank statements, and employer letter must match the rules exactly - and the dates must line up.
Other routes (self-employment, savings, pensions, rental income) follow different rules, so give yourself extra time to prepare the right documents.

3️⃣ Book the English test early
Most first-time applicants need CEFR A1.
Some people are exempt (for example: nationals of majority English-speaking countries, applicants over 65, or certain medical exemptions).
But if you do need a test, don’t leave it to the last minute - slots fill up.

4️⃣ Have accommodation details ready
Whether renting, owning, or staying with family, include clear evidence that the property is suitable and not overcrowded.

5️⃣ Slow down when filling in the form
Small errors - dates, addresses, gaps in history - cause more delays and refusals than people realise.

6️⃣ Keep your documents tidy
A simple index and a short explanation of your situation can make your case much easier for a caseworker to follow.

7️⃣ Don’t wait to book biometrics
Once you submit the application, secure the appointment and keep track of updates.

8️⃣ Be honest about your immigration history
Past issues don’t automatically mean refusal.
Trying to hide something often does.

9️⃣ If you’re asked to attend an interview
They’re not routine, but they do happen.
Caseworkers look for consistency, not perfect answers.
Be calm. Be genuine. Stick to your real story.

🔟 Get professional help if your case isn’t straightforward
Children, previous relationships, complex finances - an IAA-regulated adviser or solicitor can save stress and prevent avoidable mistakes.
Give yourself time.

If you can, start preparing at least 3 months in advance, and always double-check the latest GOV.UK guidance - the rules do change.

Your UK visa expiry date is not flexible.

Even one day late can cause serious problems.

A lot of people think there’s a “grace period” after a visa expires.

There isn’t.
Here’s what actually matters 👇

↳ When does overstaying start?

You become an overstayer the moment your immigration permission ends.
That’s the leave expiry date on your visa decision or digital status (or BRP) -
not necessarily the vignette date.
The vignette is usually just for entry.
Once your leave expires, your stay becomes unlawful.

↳ What actually protects you?

If you make a valid application before your leave expires, your status can be extended while the Home Office decides.
This is called section 3C leave.
It only works if you apply in time.
Miss the deadline, and this protection is gone.

↳ Is there any leeway if you’re late?

Very little.
A short overstay of up to 14 days may be disregarded only if:
you apply within 14 days, and
the delay was caused by something outside your control
This isn’t a grace period.
It’s discretionary.
And you’re still an overstayer while it’s considered.

↳ What about the “30-day rule”?

There’s no 30-day grace period.
Leaving within 30 days may limit the impact on future applications,
but your stay was still unlawful.

Overstaying can lead to:
loss of status
removal
visa refusals
re-entry bans
Even short overstays can follow you for years.

Protect yourself
✔ Check your leave expiry date
✔ Apply early
✔ Get help if time is tight

In UK immigration, timing really is everything.

People think a UK spouse visa is just a checklist exercise.

It isn’t, it’s about whether your life together makes sense on paper.


Yes, there are core requirements everyone has to meet:

- A valid passport.
- A genuine relationship.
- Enough income (currently £29,000), or qualifying savings, or a combination of both.
- English language.
- Accommodation that is suitable for your family size and meets Home Office housing standards.

But having documents isn’t the same as presenting a convincing case.

- The sponsor must be British or settled.
- Both partners must be over 18.
- And the Home Office must be satisfied you plan to live together long-term without relying on public funds.

Where applications usually go wrong isn’t missing paperwork, it’s weak explanation:
→ A marriage certificate with little relationship evidence.
→ Bank statements that show money, but don’t meet the financial rules.
→ Accommodation details that aren’t clearly documented or don’t meet “adequate living space” criteria.

A strong spouse visa application tells a clear story:
How you met.
How the relationship works.
How you’ll live together in the UK.
How you’ll support yourselves, in line with the financial rules.

The story and the documents must line up, and the evidence still needs to meet Home Office formatting and eligibility requirements.

When the explanation is clear, the documents reinforce it.
When it isn’t, no amount of uploads will fix the gaps.

The process rewards clarity, consistency, and compliance, not volume.

“If I’m not in a full-time salaried job, I don’t qualify.”


People hear “financial requirement” for a UK family visa and assume this one thing.

That isn’t always true.
Yes, the threshold is high (£29,000 under the current rules).
But many strong applications don’t rely on payslips at all.
They’re approved using savings, pensions, rental income, dividends, or a mix of them.

Here’s what actually matters in real cases 👇
The Home Office isn’t asking where the money comes from.
They care whether it’s:
regular
• clearly documented
• backed by proper financial evidence

If you don’t have employment income, savings can meet the requirement on their own.

For a couple with no income, that means £88,500 held for at least 6 months.
The money can be in the sponsor’s or the applicant’s name, even from the sale of a property, as long as it’s traceable and properly evidenced.

Self-employed sponsors don’t use payslips.
Profit is what counts.
That’s shown through tax returns, accounts, and bank statements for the relevant year.

Pensions can count too - but only if they’re already being paid.
Future or “due soon” pensions don’t qualify, even if guaranteed.
Rental income and dividends can work, but only when they’re regular, declared in tax records, and backed by tenancy agreements, statements, and dividend vouchers.

Where people go wrong is mixing income types without doing the calculation properly.
When you combine income and savings, the Home Office uses a fixed formula:


income + (cash savings − £16,000) ÷ 2.5

Get that wrong - even slightly - and a perfectly good case can fail.
The real problem?
A lot of families rule themselves out too early.
Others do meet the financial requirement, but submit the right money with the wrong evidence.

That’s what leads to refusals.
The rule itself isn’t flexible.
But the ways to meet it are far wider than most people think.

If you’re planning a family visa, the question isn’t:
“Do I have a job that hits the number?”
It’s this:
“Can I clearly prove the income I do have, in a way the Home Office will accept?”

Skilled Worker visa expired and you’ve realised too late?
Don’t ignore it, but don’t assume it’s over either.

But in some cases, you may still have a chance… if there was a genuine reason you couldn’t apply in time, and you can prove it.

Here’s what actually matters 👇🏻
You may still be able to apply, but only in very specific situations
The Home Office can accept an application made within 14 days after expiry, but only where the delay was truly outside your control.

It doesn’t usually count if you:
forgot the expiry date
were busy at work
left the application too late
were “still waiting on documents” you could’ve chased earlier

They normally only consider exceptional circumstances, like:
emergency hospital treatment or serious illness
bereavement of a close family member
your sponsor issuing the CoS late
a clear mistake or delay caused by your employer or HR team
If you’re relying on exceptional circumstances, you’ll need proof, not just a written statement.

Useful evidence may include:
hospital or GP letters
discharge notes
bereavement / funeral documents
emails from HR or your sponsor confirming CoS delays or admin errors
Upload this with the application, not afterwards.

Without strong evidence, late applications are very likely to be refused, even if your reason feels understandable.
And btw, overstaying still goes on your record

Even if the Home Office accepts the late application, the overstay:
stays on your immigration history
can be looked at in future applications
may affect future travel or visa routes
That’s why timing, and documentation, really matters.

If this happens to you, do this in order:
1️⃣ Apply as soon as possible on GOV.UK
2️⃣ Clearly explain why the application was late
3️⃣ Upload every piece of supporting evidence you have
4️⃣ Speak to an adviser if your situation involves employer delays or sponsorship issues

Good advice at this stage can genuinely make a difference.

You’re not the first person this has happened to, and you’re not alone.
A late Skilled Worker application isn’t automatically the end of the road….
…but it has to be handled carefully, honestly, and with the right evidence.

People still assume UK spouse visas get refused because they forgot a document.
In reality, many refusals come down to ONE core issue 👇🏻

The relationship didn’t genuinely convince the caseworker.
The Home Office has become much more forensic about whether a relationship is real, lived, and ongoing. 

A marriage certificate on its own doesn’t prove that anymore, it just starts the conversation.

What they’re really looking for is whether two people actually share a life.
Not grand gestures. Not staged photos.

But real-world life over time, where you live, how you support each other, how you spend time together, and how your plans fit together.

Where cases most often fall apart:
timelines don’t match across forms, statements and evidence
• messages look occasional or formal instead of natural
• there’s little financial connection or shared responsibility
• very few recent visits or time spent together
• future living plans sound vague or uncertain

None of these automatically mean refusal.
But together, they create doubt, and doubt is usually enough.
For unmarried partners, the expectations are even tighter.

The rule is essentially a relationship akin to marriage for at least two years.
Cohabitation is normally how people prove that, but applications can still succeed where living together wasn’t possible and there’s strong, consistent evidence of commitment and a clear reason why.

Here’s the part most applicants underestimate:
→ The Home Office isn’t trying to trap people, they’re testing whether the story and the evidence line up.

When a relationship is genuine, the details usually connect naturally.

Strong applications don’t throw in hundreds of documents, they:
✔ tell a clear, believable story
✔ show how the relationship works in real life
✔ back it up with evidence that makes sense
If you’re applying (or advising someone who is), treat the relationship evidence as the heart of the case, not the paperwork you rush at the end.
That shift in approach changes outcomes.

So many “self-sponsorship” visa applications fail…
And here’s why 👇🏻

What people often call the “self-sponsorship” route under the Skilled Worker visa does actually work.

But a few things I see tripping people up again and again:

→ Paperwork matters more than you think
Missing Appendix A documents, old forms, or badly uploaded files can derail an application. If it isn’t clearly evidenced, it might as well not exist.

→ Your business has to look and run like a real UK business
Not a shell. Not just plans on paper.
You need contracts, invoices, UK activity, and a job that genuinely matches the SOC code.

→ The money has to stack up
Salary levels, company funds, and personal maintenance all need to be supported by real bank statements, not best-case projections or rushed transfers.

→ Key people and compliance aren’t just box-ticking
Weak HR processes, sloppy record-keeping, or the wrong people in sponsor roles raise red flags very quickly.

→ Small mistakes cause big problems
Wrong CoS details, the wrong visa type, or not properly dealing with an earlier refusal can sink an otherwise strong case.

→ The biggest misconception?
That getting approved is the hard part.

In reality, staying compliant and getting your extensions approved is where most people run into trouble, especially if the business grows.

If you’re already on a self-sponsored visa, getting things right now can save you a lot of pain later.

Happy to help anyone going through this 💌

What really happens if someone overstays their UK visa on purpose?
It’s not automatically a criminal offence, but the consequences can stick around for years.

This is something I see many people misunderstand. 

On paper, overstaying is treated as a civil immigration breach, but in reality, it can affect your future visas, your ability to return, and even your plans outside the UK.

Here’s what it usually means in real life:
If you overstay, you lose your legal status straight away.
You’re technically in the UK without permission, and you can be detained or removed.

It only turns into a criminal matter when other things are involved, like using false documents, working illegally, or ignoring removal directions. 

In those cases, the penalties relate to those actions, not the overstay itself.

Where things get tougher is with future travel.
There isn’t a simple “90-day automatic ban”, but once someone has overstayed, especially beyond 30 days, future UK visa applications often become much harder.
The outcome depends on how long they stayed, whether they left voluntarily, and whether there was deception or removal action involved.
In more serious cases, people can face bans of 1, 2, 5 or even 10 years.

And the impact doesn’t always end with the UK, other countries do look at immigration history.
The part many people don’t realise is the long-term ripple effect.

An overstay has to be declared on future applications, and even when there are genuine reasons, it can still raise red flags.
Over time, good compliance and strong evidence can help, but hiding it almost always makes things worse.

If anyone ever finds themselves close to an overstay, the best thing they can do is act early: speak to a lawyer, get proper advice, and be honest about the situation.

Timing really does matter.

Bottom line, overstaying may not be “a crime” in most cases, but it can seriously affect your future plans, your options, and your ability to travel again.

Most sponsor licences don’t get into trouble because of visas.

They get into trouble because of everyday life events.

Maternity leave is one of the biggest ones.
And most sponsors don’t see it coming.

If you sponsor someone on a Skilled Worker visa, or you’ve sponsored yourself, maternity leave doesn’t pause your sponsor duties.

From the Home Office’s point of view, it’s a change in the worker’s circumstances.

And changes need to be reported.

In practical terms, if maternity leave means the sponsored worker will be absent on reduced pay or statutory pay for more than 4 weeks, the sponsor must update the Sponsorship Management System (SMS).

 That includes:
 – the start date of maternity leave
 – the expected return date
 – any salary change linked to statutory maternity pay

These updates must be made within 10 working days of the change.

Miss it, and it’s not treated as a harmless admin slip.

It’s logged as a breach of sponsor duties.
The kind that shows up in audits.
The kind that leads to warnings, or worse.

 What surprises founders most?

 This applies even when the sponsored worker is you.

 If you’re self-sponsored, your own maternity or parental leave still has to be reported by your company in exactly the same way.

 This route only works if your business behaves like a real UK employer.
 Especially when real life happens.

 And sometimes, one small update in the SMS is what keeps everything else protected.

One missing document can sink a UK visa…

and you often don’t find out until weeks later.

A lot of people assume the Home Office will warn them if something’s missing.
It usually doesn’t, the first sign is a delay… or a refusal.

Here’s the boring step that saves people the most pain:
 
-  When your application generates a checklist, download it (or note it carefully) and go through it line by line. If a document isn’t clearly covered, treat that as a problem to solve, not something to gamble on.

-  Then cross-check the GOV.UK page for your visa type. The checklist doesn’t always explain what counts as acceptable evidence, especially for finances or family documents, and some items have strict formatting or certification rules. That’s where people upload the right thing… but in the wrong format.

- After biometrics, don’t disappear from the process. Check your UKVI or VFS account, extra evidence requests usually appear there, and the deadlines are short (often 7–14 days).

And if you’ve had a refusal before, read the refusal letter like a roadmap. It nearly always tells you what went wrong.

Most visa problems aren’t complicated.
They come from assumptions and rushed uploads.
Slow, careful document checking at the start beats stress, delays, and appeals, later.

Big shift ahead for UK Skilled Worker PhD salary rules?

MAC (Migration Advisory Committee) recommends scrapping PhD-specific salary discounts 

In simple terms, the MAC is suggesting that instead of having separate salary bands for STEM, non-STEM, and postdocs, there should just be one “new entrant” graduate rate at £33,400. 
Their review found no real evidence that PhD graduates earn less than other skilled workers, which is what the discounts were originally meant to reflect.

The main Skilled Worker threshold would still be £41,700, and nothing has changed yet. 
These ideas would only come into effect if the government accepts them, possibly from April 2026.

Right now, PhD holders can qualify on slightly lower salary rates, especially in STEM and postdoc roles. 
The MAC’s view is that the system has become complicated and doesn’t fully match what’s actually happening in the job market.

Their recommendation is to:
• remove the separate PhD salary discounts
• use one simpler £33,400 graduate “new entrant” rate
• support postdocs, but move them toward the £41,700 level if they stay longer term

If this goes ahead, it could have some real-world impacts.
Universities may need to pay more to hire early-career researchers, research budgets could tighten, and employers may rethink how they approach international hiring.

It could especially affect international PhD talent, including many students and researchers from India.
For now, we’re still waiting on the government’s response, so this remains a recommendation, not a rule change.

One wrong decision after a visa expiry can put an employer in breach.

This is exactly where 3C Leave catches employers out.

It’s a rule many HR teams only discover after panic sets in, when an employee’s visa has expired, the Home Office hasn’t decided, and no one is quite sure whether suspending them is the “safe” option.

So, what’s actually going on?

3C Leave comes from Section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971.
In simple terms, if you submit the visa application before expiry, the employee’s right to live and work in the UK is automatically extended while the Home Office decides

That’s crucial, because it can allow them to keep working.
But only on the same terms as before.

Here’s what employers really need to know:
→ The application must be submitted before the visa expiry date
→ If the employee had the right to work before, that right continues under the same conditions as their previous visa (same hours, role, and sponsor)
→ 3C Leave lasts until a decision is made, and may continue while an in-country appeal or administrative review is pending
→ If an application is refused and no in-country appeal or administrative review is available, 3C Leave ends
→ 3C Leave ends if: 
• The application is refused and no appeal/review is available 
• The employee leaves the UK before a decision is made”

If you’re unsure while an application is pending, the Employer Checking Service is your safest option.
It confirms whether 3C Leave applies and protects you from right-to-work compliance risk.

This is one of those immigration rules where acting too quickly can be just as risky as doing nothing.

3C Leave Rule

One assumption is killing sponsor licence applications in 2026..

I’m seeing more refusals this year where the business should have been approved, but wasn’t.

Because there’s far less tolerance in how the rules are enforced.

What’s catching people out?
↳ Appendix A documents that don’t quite pass muster.
Missing files.
Slightly out of date versions.
Correct documents, wrong format.
That alone can sink an application early.

↳ Details that don’t align.
Job title says one thing.
Duties suggest another.
The SOC code and salary point somewhere else entirely.
Individually, they seem minor.
Together, they don’t inspire confidence.
And SOC codes aren’t just labels - they need to accurately reflect the role’s skill level and pay band to withstand Home Office scrutiny.

↳ Key people getting overlooked.
Too many businesses focus on the role and forget that the Authorising Officer and users are assessed just as closely.
Their background, availability, and credibility all matter.

↳ Compliance issues that feel unrelated.
Late VAT.
PAYE hiccups.
Thin or inconsistent financial evidence.
None of these automatically mean refusal.
But they do change how the application is viewed.

↳ Rushed or templated applications.
Just very easy to spot when something hasn’t been properly thought through.

The applications that get through tend to have one thing in common:
They’re treated like a compliance exercise, not admin.
Everything checked.
Nothing assumed.

If you’ve already had a refusal, many come with a cooling-off period, often around six months. Sometimes longer.
That’s a long time to pause hiring because of a preventable issue.

The rules haven’t changed.
But how rigorously they’re applied definitely has.
If you’re planning to sponsor someone this year, the real question isn’t whether you qualify.
It’s whether your application would stand up to close scrutiny.
That’s what’s different now.

taplio

The Battle

Asim Amin

Laura Notaro

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreAsim Amin's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreLaura Notaro's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Asim Amin

Laura Notaro

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance Score.css-goub6s{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:500;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);display:block;margin-top:var(--chakra-space-1);}Asim Amin's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreLaura Notaro's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreAsim Amin's LinkedIn Performance