LAST REVIEWED: MAY 2026
TL;DR- OISC and SRA are the two main regulators for UK immigration advice.
- SRA-regulated solicitors are exempt from OISC authorisation.
- Both regulators set conduct, competence, and complaints standards.
- Client protection is broadly equivalent but the routes differ.
Both the OISC and the SRA can regulate firms that give UK immigration advice. This guide compares the two regimes, sets out what each covers, and explains how to choose the right type of firm for a given immigration matter.
The Statutory Basis for Each Regulator
The OISC was created by the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 to regulate immigration advice and services. Its remit is specific to immigration and is restricted by section 84 of the Act, which exempts members of designated professional bodies from needing OISC authorisation.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority is the independent regulator of solicitors and law firms in England and Wales, established under the Legal Services Act 2007. The SRA regulates all aspects of solicitors' practice, of which immigration is one specialism alongside many others.
Both regulators publish a Code of Conduct, hold public registers, and operate complaints schemes. The legal frameworks differ, but the operational reality is similar: a regulated firm must demonstrate competence, manage client funds properly, handle complaints, and accept the regulator's supervision.
Scope: What Each Regulator Covers
OISC authorisation covers immigration advice and services in three defined categories and at three levels. Outside immigration, the OISC has no remit, so wider legal questions such as conveyancing, family law, or commercial work fall outside its scope entirely.
SRA regulation covers all reserved legal activities and a range of other professional services. A solicitors' firm regulated by the SRA can offer immigration advice as part of a wider service, which is convenient where the matter intersects with family, employment, or property work.
For pure immigration matters at the right OISC level, an OISC firm and an SRA firm may both be capable choices. Where the matter crosses into other legal areas, a multi-disciplinary SRA-regulated firm may be more efficient, while a single-specialism OISC firm may offer deep subject-matter focus.
Client Care: Comparable Standards Through Different Routes
Both regimes require written client-care information, transparency on fees, and a defined complaints procedure. The OISC Code of Standards and the SRA Code of Conduct each set out duties on competence, integrity, and acting in the client's best interests.
Client funds in OISC firms are held under the conditions of the OISC Code, which requires segregation and proper accounting. Client funds in SRA firms are subject to the SRA Accounts Rules, which are more prescriptive and audited regularly. Both regimes aim to ensure that money belonging to clients is identifiable and accessible.
Indemnity insurance is required of both. The minimum cover levels differ by regulator and by firm size, but the underlying purpose is the same: to ensure that a client who suffers loss because of professional error has recourse against a financially solvent insured firm.
Complaints: Different Routes to Comparable Outcomes
An OISC firm handles complaints internally first, then through the OISC complaints scheme if unresolved. The OISC can investigate conduct, impose sanctions, and publish outcomes. There is no separate ombudsman for OISC firms; the regulator's scheme covers both service and conduct.
An SRA firm handles complaints internally first, then through the Legal Ombudsman for service issues and the SRA for conduct issues. The Legal Ombudsman can require compensation up to a published limit, and the SRA can impose disciplinary sanctions on individuals and firms.
Both routes are robust. Clients should not assume that one regulator offers stronger protection than the other. The choice between an OISC and an SRA firm is rarely a regulatory question and is more often driven by specialism, cost, and personal preference.
When to Choose an OISC Firm
OISC firms often specialise heavily in immigration. A firm that handles only immigration cases day in and day out builds deep procedural knowledge that may be hard to match in a general practice. For routine Level 1 and many Level 2 matters, a focused OISC firm can be an efficient and economical choice.
Many OISC firms are smaller and more accessible, with shorter chains of command between the case worker and the supervising adviser. For clients who value direct communication and a single point of contact, this can be a real advantage.
Fees in OISC firms are not necessarily lower than in SRA firms, but the firm structure often supports clear fixed-fee quoting at Level 1, which makes budgeting straightforward.
When to Choose an SRA Firm
SRA-regulated firms include both specialist immigration practices and large full-service firms. Where the immigration matter sits within a wider legal context, an SRA firm can coordinate cross-practice work more easily.
Complex appeals, judicial review, and high-stakes asylum or deportation work often involve solicitors and counsel. SRA firms are well placed to instruct barristers and to manage the procedural requirements of judicial review proceedings, which include specific rules and tight deadlines.
An SRA firm with Law Society Immigration and Asylum Law Accreditation, in particular at senior caseworker level, combines the breadth of solicitors' regulation with demonstrated subject-matter specialism. This combination is often a strong fit for complex cases.
Further Reading on UK Immigration Regulation
For readers who want to dig deeper into the regulatory framework, the OISC publishes its Code of Standards, complaints scheme, and annual enforcement statistics on oisc.gov.uk. The Solicitors Regulation Authority publishes the SRA Code of Conduct, the SRA Accounts Rules, and the SRA Transparency Rules on sra.org.uk. The full text of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, including Part V which created the OISC regime, is available on legislation.gov.uk. Reading the source legislation alongside the regulator's published guidance is often the fastest way to understand where the boundaries of authorised practice fall and how each regulator has interpreted its statutory remit.
The Legal Aid Agency publishes its directory of contracted providers on gov.uk and reports annually on legal aid spending, including the volume of immigration and asylum cases supported. The Law Society maintains the Immigration and Asylum Law Accreditation Scheme and publishes the assessment criteria on its website. The Immigration Law Practitioners' Association is a long-established membership body for immigration lawyers and publishes practitioner guidance and policy commentary on ilpa.org.uk. Each of these resources provides a different angle on the immigration adviser market, and together they support a more informed decision when comparing firms or assessing the advice received in a current matter.
For the underlying statistics on immigration decisions, the Home Office publishes quarterly immigration statistics on gov.uk, which include data on visa grants, refusals, appeals, and removals. These statistics provide important context when assessing how often particular categories of application are refused and how often refusals are overturned on appeal. Combined with regulator data on the adviser market, the statistics give a fuller picture of how UK immigration casework operates in practice. The tribunals service also publishes its own statistics covering immigration appeals, including allowance rates by category and average waiting times, which is useful context for any conversation with an adviser about case timetables and realistic expectations.
How Regulator Decisions Are Published and Where to Read Them
The OISC publishes its enforcement and disciplinary outcomes through its website, with annual reports summarising the volume of complaints received, the volume upheld, and the sanctions imposed. The reports also describe the patterns of unauthorised practice the regulator has investigated, which evolves over time as immigration policy and the adviser market change. Reading the most recent annual report alongside the public register gives a sense of both the current state of regulation and the issues the OISC is most actively pursuing.
The SRA publishes disciplinary decisions in its Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal section, with searchable summaries of cases brought against individual solicitors and firms. The Legal Ombudsman publishes service complaint decisions covering all areas of solicitor work, including immigration, and these too are searchable by firm name. Where a firm under consideration has been the subject of recent decisions, the published summaries are a direct and authoritative source of detail about what went wrong and how the regulator or ombudsman saw the issue.
None of these published outcomes is by itself decisive. Most large firms accumulate some complaints over time and the question is whether the pattern indicates a systemic issue or a small number of isolated matters in a high-volume practice. Reading the underlying decisions, rather than relying on aggregate counts, gives a more informed view of how a firm operates in practice and how it responds when something goes wrong.
Practitioner guidance from the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association supplements the regulators' published material with peer-reviewed analysis of new case law, statutory instruments, and policy changes. Subscribing to the ILPA mailing list, where it is publicly available, is one way for prospective clients to see how active members of the profession are discussing the issues that may affect their case. The Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford and the Refugee Law Initiative at the University of London also publish non-partisan analysis of UK immigration policy that can put a specific case in wider context.
Where a case is likely to involve a tribunal appeal or judicial review, the published decisions of the First-tier and Upper Tribunals on the gov.uk tribunals service give a direct view of how similar cases have been decided. Reading two or three recent reported decisions on a relevant point is often more informative than reading commentary about them. Anonymisation rules apply, so individual cases are reported in a form that protects personal data while preserving the legal reasoning, which is what matters for understanding the framework.
Disclaimer
The information on this page is for general guidance only and does not constitute legal advice. Kaeltripton.com is not regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority or authorised by the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner. Always verify an adviser's authorisation status on the official OISC register at oisc.gov.uk before instructing them.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can the same person be both OISC and SRA regulated?
An individual may move between sectors but holds authorisation under one regime at a time. A solicitor giving immigration advice in an SRA firm is regulated by the SRA. A non-solicitor in an OISC firm is regulated by the OISC.
Is one regulator stricter than the other?
Both regulators take their roles seriously. The frameworks differ but the standards of competence and conduct are comparable, and both publish enforcement outcomes.
Does an OISC firm cost less than an SRA firm?
Not necessarily. Fees vary by firm, complexity, and geography. SRA Transparency Rules require published indicative pricing for immigration services, which makes comparison easier.
Can an SRA firm handle asylum?
Yes, where the firm has the relevant specialism. Many SRA firms hold a legal aid contract for asylum work and instruct counsel for tribunal advocacy.
Is the GOV.UK adviser finder limited to one regulator?
No. The finder at gov.uk/find-an-immigration-adviser combines OISC-registered firms and SRA-regulated solicitors in a single search.
What if my adviser is regulated by neither?
Acting as an immigration adviser without authorisation under either regime is a criminal offence under section 91 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Report such practice to the OISC.
How This Was Verified
This article draws on the following primary sources:
