Employment Law16 April 20268 min read

Statutory Sick Pay Changes 2026: What UK Employers Must Do Now to Stay Compliant

From 6 April 2026, Statutory Sick Pay starts from the first full day of sickness absence, applies without the old earnings threshold, and forces UK employers to update policies as well as payroll.

8 min read · 16 April 2026

On 6 April 2026, one of the most important practical changes to employee entitlement in recent years came into force.

Under the Employment Rights Act 2025, Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) changed in law across the UK.

Not in theory.

Not in draft guidance.

In force.

And yet many employers are still operating sickness absence policies written for rules that no longer apply.

That is where compliance risk builds quietly.

Not through a dramatic failure.

Through policy drift that sits unnoticed until someone tests it.

The Change Many Businesses Still Have Not Fully Absorbed

The SSP reform looks simple on the surface, but its operational impact is wider than it first appears.

From 6 April 2026:

SSP is payable from the first full day of sickness absence
The three waiting days have been removed
The Lower Earnings Limit no longer blocks otherwise eligible employees from SSP
SSP is paid at 80% of average weekly earnings or the weekly flat rate, whichever is lower

For the 2026 to 2027 tax year, that flat rate is GBP123.25 per week.

One important nuance matters here: eligibility is broader, not universal.

Employees still need to meet the remaining SSP conditions, but the old earnings threshold is gone.

Individually, those changes are manageable.

Collectively, they reshape how organisations define, document, and administer sickness absence.

Why This Is a Policy Problem First

Most organisations will initially treat this as a payroll update.

That is too narrow.

Payroll has to calculate SSP correctly, but the deeper risk sits in the written framework around it.

If your sickness absence policy still refers to day four payments, earnings-threshold eligibility, or pre-April 2026 wording, then your documentation is out of step with the law.

That creates a structural misalignment between:

what your policy says
what managers tell employees
what payroll actually does
what the law now requires

When those four things diverge, the organisation carries the risk.

The Reality of Policy Drift

This is a textbook case of policy drift.

Nothing necessarily looks broken on the surface.

Employees are being paid.

Absences are being recorded.

Managers are following familiar processes.

But the framework underneath may already be outdated.

That is what makes policy drift dangerous.

It usually stays invisible until it is tested by:

an employee query or grievance
an HMRC challenge over payment handling
a tribunal claim
an insurer, auditor, or due diligence review

At that point, the question is not what the organisation meant to do.

It is what the policy said at the time.

The Policies That Must Be Updated

This change does not live in one document.

At a minimum, employers should review and update:

the Sickness Absence Policy
the Employee Handbook
payroll and benefits documentation
manager guidance and HR procedures
return-to-work templates and related workflows

HMRC has already told employers to review sickness absence policies, check payroll readiness, and share the changes with employees.

What looks like a single legislative update is really a cross-policy dependency.

What Actually Needs to Change

This is where many organisations fall short.

They acknowledge the change, but fail to translate it into defensible policy language.

The required updates are precise.

Remove all references to a three-day waiting period and state clearly that SSP starts from the first full day of sickness absence
Remove legacy wording that links SSP entitlement to the Lower Earnings Limit
Update payment wording so it reflects the current rule: 80% of average weekly earnings or the statutory flat rate, whichever is lower
Align manager guidance and payroll processes so the same rule is being applied everywhere
Add or review wording for transitional absences that span 6 April 2026

That final point matters more than most employers realise.

HMRC has issued separate guidance for absences that began before 6 April 2026 but continued on or after that date.

If your policy framework ignores transition handling, it is incomplete.

Transitional Cases Are a Genuine Compliance Trap

The post-April 2026 rule is simple.

The handover into it is not.

HMRC's transitional guidance covers cases such as:

employees who were below the old Lower Earnings Limit before 6 April 2026
employees who were serving waiting days when the rules changed
employees who restarted a sickness absence on 4 or 5 April 2026
employees already receiving SSP before 6 April 2026

This is exactly why a superficial policy edit is not enough.

You need aligned instructions, payroll logic, and dated documentation that show how the organisation handled the crossover.

The Risk of Doing Nothing

The most common failure is not refusal to comply.

It is delay.

But delay creates exposure quickly.

Employees may be underpaid or misinformed about entitlement
Managers may keep applying rules that no longer exist
Policy and payroll discrepancies can look systemic rather than accidental
Auditors and insurers may see outdated documents as evidence of weak governance
In a dispute, written policy will be one of the first things examined

This is where organisations discover too late that their documents did not keep pace with the law.

What UK Employers Should Do Now

If this has not already been done, the practical next steps are straightforward:

review every SSP reference across policy and handbook documents
confirm your payroll provider or internal payroll team is applying the 6 April 2026 rules
update manager guidance, templates, and return-to-work processes
communicate the changes internally so employees are not relying on old wording
keep an audit trail showing what changed, when it changed, and who approved it

This is no longer just about having a policy.

It is about proving that policy, payroll, and practice are aligned.