
An ex employee's new employer emails asking for a reference. A line manager takes a quick phone call from a recruiter and answers a few "off the record" questions about someone who left last year. HR receives a template from a bank requesting six years of employment history for a candidate applying to a senior role.
Each of these scenarios carries different legal risks, yet some businesses handle them informally, inconsistently, or without a written policy. That inconsistency is often where risk creeps in. Handled badly, a reference can expose the former employer to claims and leave future employers hiring someone whose history has been fabricated.
Reference practice has also become more scrutinised as data protection regulators tighten guidance. The Information Commissioner's Office updated its right of access guidance in December 2025 [1], and the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 came into force in February 2026, changing how employers must respond to subject access requests that touch on reference material [2].
For most employers in Great Britain, there is no general obligation to provide a reference. An employer may therefore decide, as a matter of policy, whether it will provide references on request, provide only limited factual references, or decline reference requests altogether. However, there are circumstances in which a reference may be required.
The practical implication tends to be straightforward: consistency might matter more than the decision itself. An employer may be able to decide to provide references for everyone, provide references for no one, or provide only factual "tombstone" references. What can create risk is providing detailed references for some employees and refusing or downgrading for others.
Once an employer chooses to provide a reference, three distinct duties apply.
In Spring v Guardian Assurance (1994), the House of Lords established that an employer providing a reference owes a duty of care in the tort of negligence to the subject of that reference [4]. The employer must take reasonable care in preparing it, which typically involves making reasonable enquiries into the factual basis of any statements before including them. A former employee who suffers financial loss - typically the withdrawal of a job offer - because of a negligently prepared reference can bring a claim for damages.
The employer receiving a reference also may have legal recourse if it is misled. A referring employer who provides a glowing reference for someone dismissed for misconduct, and the new employer relies on it and suffers loss, may face a claim from the new employer for negligent misstatement [5]. This is part of the reason why many organisations have moved to short, factual references only - it reduces the temptation to soften the reality of a departure to help someone move on.
References contain personal data. Under UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018, employers need a lawful basis to process that data - typically legitimate interests or, where health information is involved, more specific conditions [6].
The ICO recognises an exemption for confidential references - these may be exempt from disclosure under a subject access request when given for the purposes of education, training, employment, appointment to office, or the provision of a service. The exemption applies whether the reference was given or received. However, it only applies where the reference is genuinely treated as confidential, which the employer should make clear in privacy notices, staff handbooks, or a reference policy [6].
Since the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 took effect in February 2026, employers must apply a "reasonable and proportionate" search standard when responding to subject access requests, but the confidential reference exemption continues to apply [2].
The policy should specify the type of reference the business provides. A typical factual reference might confirm:
One important point is consistency. If the standard is factual references, that standard should apply to everyone - including senior leavers, popular leavers, and those the business would rather see move on.
When a requesting employer pushes for more information than the standard policy provides, the answer may be a polite refusal: "It is our policy to provide factual references only" [5].
If the business does choose to answer specific questions, the answers should be based on documented fact, supportable by contemporaneous records (performance reviews, disciplinary notes, attendance data), limited to what is genuinely relevant to the role, and handled carefully where sensitive information is involved.
An employer providing a reference may disclose the number of days an employee has been absent due to sickness without necessarily breaching data protection legislation, as this information does not, in itself, reveal special category health data. However, caution should be exercised when disclosing the reasons for an absence or any details relating to an employee's illness, injury, or medical condition.
Information about an individual's health is classified as special category data under the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and should only be shared where it is necessary, proportionate, and supported by a lawful basis, such as the employee's explicit consent or a specific employment law obligation. Medical records or detailed health information should not be included in a reference without the employee's express consent.
Employers should also ensure that any information disclosed does not give rise to unlawful discrimination, including disability discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.
The rise of fake reference services means the receiving employer also needs a robust process.
The Cifas Workplace Fraud Trends Report 2025, based on a nationally representative survey of 2,000 UK employees, found that 19% of UK professionals have either used a fraudulent reference house or know someone who has, and 30% consider the use of reference houses to fabricate qualifications to be justifiable [7]. The Better Hiring Institute, Cifas, and Reed Screening have identified reference houses and AI-assisted fraud as among the fastest-growing risks in the hiring process [12]. Some of these services - companies that sell fabricated references, complete with functioning websites, phone numbers, and fake company presence - have reportedly become sophisticated enough to pass casual verification.
Here are a few practical steps to verify a reference.
Conditional offers should specify that they are subject to satisfactory references. This preserves the ability to withdraw the offer if references cannot be verified or contain material concerns.
An effective policy does not need to be lengthy. It should cover:
The policy should be referenced in the staff handbook and covered during manager training. Templates for standard responses can save time and help ensure consistency across the business.
This article is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information is accurate at the time of writing but may be subject to change. For advice specific to your situation, please consult a qualified professional.
[1] Information Commissioner's Office, Right of access guidance, December 2025.
[2] Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, in force February 2026.
[3] ACAS, References for work.
[4] Spring v Guardian Assurance plc [1994] UKHL 7; [1995] 2 AC 296.
[5] EmployerKit, Employment References: What UK Employers Can and Cannot Say, 2026.
[6] Information Commissioner's Office, Subject access request Q and As for employers.
[7] Cifas, Workplace Fraud Trends Report 2025, November 2025 (survey of 2,000 UK employees conducted by Opinion Matters).
[8] FCA Handbook, SYSC 22 - Regulatory References.
[9] Sprintlaw UK, Providing References in the UK: Employer Obligations and Risks, December 2025.
[10] Equality Act 2010.
[11] ACAS, References for work - employer guidance.
[12] Better Hiring Institute, Cifas and Reed Screening, Tackling Hiring Fraud, 2024-2025.