October 2026

Employment

Six months, not three

Employment Tribunal time limits changed on 1 October.

One of the most immediate changes for employers has already happened. From 1 October 2026, the time limit for bringing many claims in the Employment Tribunal increased from three months to six months. There are transitional provisions, so it would be misleading to say that everybody with an existing employment dispute has simply been handed another three months. The relevant date and the nature of the particular claim still matter.

For employers, however, the operational consequence is straightforward: potential disputes may remain live for considerably longer. A matter which appears to have gone quiet should not necessarily be treated as finished simply because several months have passed, particularly where there has already been a grievance, disciplinary process, dismissal, redundancy, discrimination complaint, whistleblowing concern or another event capable of developing into litigation.

That makes evidence preservation more important. Depending on the circumstances, relevant material can include emails and internal messages, investigation and meeting notes, grievance and disciplinary correspondence, performance and attendance records, rotas, payroll information, the version of a policy in force at the time, witness accounts and documents showing who made a particular decision and why. The answer is not to retain everything forever; data protection obligations still apply. The point is to stop assuming potentially important material can safely disappear merely because the old three-month window appears to have passed.

There is also a more basic issue. Retaining a document is not particularly useful if, six months later, nobody can understand from it why a decision was made. A dismissal letter may record an outcome without explaining the reasoning. Investigation notes may make sense to the manager who wrote them but very little sense to anybody else. Performance concerns may have been discussed repeatedly without ever being documented properly. Those weaknesses become harder to repair as memories fade, managers move on and messages disappear.

Employment

30 October: harassment duties change

From 30 October 2026, employers will be required to take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment, strengthening the existing preventative duty. The difference in wording is small, but the practical distinction matters: employers need to think about all of the preventative steps that are reasonable for their particular organisation, rather than selecting a few measures and assuming the job is done.

This does not mean that a six-person professional services business is expected to operate the same system as a large hospitality group, school or care provider. Size, sector, previous incidents, working patterns and the degree of contact employees have with other people will all influence what is reasonable. What businesses should be able to show is that they have actually considered their own risks rather than simply relying on a policy which has been sitting in a handbook for years.

The same date also brings an important change around third-party harassment. Employers may become liable where their workers are harassed by somebody outside the organisation unless all reasonable steps have been taken to prevent it. That can include customers, clients, service users, consultants, contractors, tradespeople, people encountered at events and members of the public. For some businesses, this changes the risk assessment considerably.

A restaurant or bar needs to think about customer behaviour and alcohol. A care provider may need to consider interactions with service users and relatives. A property business may have staff working alone with tenants or contractors. A consultancy may have employees spending time at client premises or attending industry events. Online businesses may have to consider abusive contact through digital channels. The fact that an employer does not employ the person responsible does not remove the need to consider what could reasonably have been done to protect its own worker.

There is also a cultural element. An organisation can have an excellent policy on paper and still undermine it if complaints are dismissed as banter, staff are told that difficult customers are simply part of the job, managers discourage reporting or employees believe raising a concern will damage their position. The better question for an SME is therefore not whether it has a harassment policy. It is where could harassment realistically arise in this business, and what have we actually done about those risks?

On the radar

January is closer than it looks

From 1 January 2027, the qualifying period for ordinary unfair dismissal protection falls from two years to six months. The existing cap on compensatory awards for unfair dismissal will also be removed, while stronger restrictions around dismissal and re-engagement, commonly referred to as fire and rehire, are due to take effect.

The reduction to six months is particularly important for businesses using six-month probation periods. A probation period has never created a special exemption from ordinary employment law, but some employers have treated the end of probation as the point at which performance, conduct or suitability is finally considered. Allowing a six-month probation to drift without a proper review may become considerably riskier.

That does not mean every probation period needs to be shortened automatically. It does mean concerns should be identified and addressed while there is still time to do something useful with them, extensions should not be used casually, and managers should not leave a decision until the employee has crossed the new qualifying threshold simply because nobody arranged the review meeting.

It is also worth remembering that the six-month reform does not create protection where none exists today. Employees can already bring certain claims without two years' service, including discrimination claims and claims involving a number of automatically unfair reasons for dismissal. January expands ordinary unfair dismissal protection, but it does not replace those existing rights.

One thing to check this month

What employers should review now

There is still time to prepare, and most businesses do not need to turn October into a wholesale HR reconstruction project. A sensible review can be much more targeted.

1. Review harassment risks, not just the policy. Consider customers, clients, contractors, service users, events, online contact, lone working and previous complaints.
2. Check reporting routes. Managers need to know what to do when somebody raises a concern and employees need to know where they can go.
3. Review evidence retention. Many Tribunal claims can now arise later than employers have historically been used to.
4. Look at probation. Identify employees approaching six months' service around or after 1 January and deal with existing performance or conduct issues properly.
5. Check disciplinary, grievance and capability processes. The objective is not more paperwork, but a process that can be explained and defended later.

Business & compliance

Companies House watch

Identity verification became a legal requirement under the Companies House reforms from 18 November 2025. New directors are required to verify as part of the relevant incorporation or appointment process, while existing directors need to provide their Companies House personal code in connection with the company's confirmation statement. People with significant control have their own verification requirements.

For businesses with existing directors, the practical point is that verifying an individual's identity and linking that verification to each company appointment are not necessarily the same thing. A director of several companies uses the same personal code, but the code still needs to be provided for each relevant appointment. Someone who is both a director and a PSC may also have steps to complete in each capacity.

If you have not looked at your Companies House position recently, October is a sensible time to check the public register, your next confirmation statement date and whether every director and PSC has completed what is required for their particular role. Corporate housekeeping is easier before the filing deadline than while somebody is trying to submit a confirmation statement which will not go through.

Commercial watch

Late payment reform is moving closer

Late commercial payments have long been one of those problems businesses tend to regard as an unavoidable part of trading. The government is now proposing a substantially stronger regime through the Commercial Payments Bill, introduced to Parliament in May 2026 following consultation on late payment practices.

The proposals include a 60-day maximum payment term subject to limited exceptions, mandatory interest on late payments at 8% above the Bank of England base rate, and stronger powers for the Small Business Commissioner. These measures are not yet the law in force, so businesses should not rewrite existing contracts as though the Bill has already taken effect.

There is nevertheless a good reason to look at payment terms now. A business chasing an unpaid invoice is in a much stronger position where the contract clearly identifies when payment is due, what happens if payment is late, what work or goods were actually agreed, how disputes are to be raised and whether services can be suspended if invoices remain unpaid. Too many payment disputes begin with an invoice but are really caused by weak contracting much earlier in the relationship.

From Aubrey

Employment support that works with the business you actually have

The current reforms will generate a great deal of advice telling businesses to update policies, retrain managers and review procedures. For some organisations, all of those things will be appropriate. For others, the priority may be much narrower: dealing properly with an existing performance issue, reviewing a probation process, investigating a complaint or making sure a harassment policy actually reflects how the business operates.

A final note

Before January becomes urgent

The thread running through this month's Briefing is not that every employer needs a new handbook. It is that employment risk becomes harder to manage when decisions are allowed to drift, the record is unclear or everybody assumes there will be time to sort the process out later.

1 October changed how long many potential Tribunal claims remain live. 30 October raises the standard employers are expected to meet around harassment. 1 January brings the unfair dismissal threshold much closer. None of those dates requires panic. They do justify a proper look at the ordinary employment processes businesses rely on every day.

The businesses best placed for the next stage of reform will not necessarily be those with the longest policies. They will be the ones whose managers know what the policies mean and whose decisions can still be understood several months after they were made.

Best wishes,
Ann

More from Aubrey

Read more