Zia Yusuf slams ‘dangerous’ Deliveroo and makes threat after woman raped

Zia Yusuf has escalated his criticism of Deliveroo after a food delivery rider was jailed for 21 years for the rape and sexual assault of a woman in London, using the case to demand tougher rules on companies and online platforms that allow people without the legal right to work to access employment.

The Reform UK home affairs spokesperson has written to Deliveroo’s chief executive and board of directors, questioning how Salem Rekoub was able to work through the platform despite, according to the prosecution case, not having permission to work in Britain.

Yusuf has also warned that a future Reform UK government would introduce legislation imposing much tougher personal consequences on company directors who profit from illegal working.

The proposed approach would represent a significant change from the current system, under which employers can already face substantial civil penalties and, in more serious circumstances, criminal prosecution where they knowingly employ people without the right to work.

The case that triggered the intervention

Rekoub, 28, was sentenced to 21 years in prison after being convicted of three counts of rape and two counts of assault by penetration.

According to reporting of the court case, Rekoub had arrived in Britain from Algeria on a tourist visa in 2023 and did not have permission to work in the UK.

The prosecution told the court that checks concerning whether he should have been working were incomplete.

The circumstances of the case have prompted questions about how an individual without the necessary immigration status was able to obtain access to a delivery platform and carry out work involving direct contact with members of the public.

Deliveroo has strongly disputed the suggestion that Rekoub was a properly verified rider on its platform.

The company said it was “appalled” by the crimes and described Rekoub as someone who had abused its systems to gain access illegally. Deliveroo also said it had subsequently strengthened measures designed to control who can access its platform.

That distinction is important.

The case does not establish that Deliveroo knowingly employed Rekoub as an illegal worker. Rather, it raises questions about whether the platform’s verification procedures were sufficient to prevent an unauthorised person from using its system.

Yusuf demands answers from Deliveroo

Yusuf’s letter focuses directly on that issue.

The Reform politician has questioned what checks were incomplete and why those deficiencies allowed Rekoub to work.

He has also referred to other criminal cases involving delivery riders and alleged abuse of delivery accounts, arguing that the government and technology companies need to take greater responsibility for ensuring that people providing services through online platforms are properly identified and legally entitled to work.

His intervention forms part of Reform UK’s wider political argument that Britain’s immigration system needs to place greater responsibility on businesses as well as individuals.

Yusuf has argued that companies should face stronger consequences if they benefit financially from illegal working.

However, the distinction between illegal working and criminal behaviour is crucial.

A person who works illegally is not necessarily violent or dangerous, just as legal immigration status does not guarantee that an individual will never commit a crime.

The Rekoub case involves a serious criminal conviction, but the proposed legislation would concern the separate question of whether businesses and platforms properly comply with immigration and right-to-work requirements.

What does the law currently require?

British employers already have a legal duty to conduct right-to-work checks.

Updated Home Office guidance published in September 2026 states that employers must establish that a person is permitted to carry out the work in question. Where the prescribed checks are correctly completed, an employer can establish a statutory excuse against a civil penalty if the worker is subsequently found not to have permission to work.

The consequences for employers can already be severe.

Under the current system, an employer that is found to have employed an illegal worker without the required checks can face a civil penalty of up to £60,000 per worker.

In serious cases, an employer can also face criminal prosecution, with a maximum sentence of five years’ imprisonment and an unlimited fine where the employer knew or had reasonable cause to believe that the person did not have the right to work.

Other possible consequences include business closure, director disqualification and restrictions on sponsoring migrant workers.

This means the political argument is not about whether companies have responsibilities. They already do.

The disagreement is over how far those responsibilities should go and whether senior executives should become personally criminally liable even when prosecutors cannot establish knowledge or intent.

Reform’s proposed “Deliveroo Law”

That is where Yusuf’s proposed “Deliveroo Law” would mark a significant departure.

According to Yusuf’s letter, Reform wants company CEOs and directors to become personally and criminally liable for breaches of right-to-work requirements under a strict-liability framework.

Under such a system, prosecutors would not necessarily need to demonstrate that a director intended to employ an illegal worker.

That would be a major change in principle.

At present, the criminal offence of employing an illegal worker requires knowledge or reasonable cause to believe that the person was not entitled to work. The civil penalty regime is broader, but employers can avoid the penalty by demonstrating that they conducted the prescribed checks correctly.

A strict-liability offence would potentially shift more of the legal risk onto company leadership.

Supporters could argue that this would create a powerful incentive for companies to invest in more effective verification systems.

Critics could argue that criminal liability without proof of intent or knowledge risks punishing directors for failures they did not personally cause or know about.

The exact details would therefore matter enormously if such legislation were ever introduced.

Why delivery platforms are particularly complicated

Traditional employment relationships are relatively straightforward.

A company employs an individual, carries out a right-to-work check and retains the necessary evidence.

Online delivery platforms can involve more complicated contractual arrangements, including self-employed couriers, substitution arrangements and online matching services.

The Home Office’s September 2026 draft guidance specifically recognises that right-to-work obligations can apply to online matching services in certain circumstances. It states that such services may be responsible for checks and may become liable for civil penalties where an individual is found to be working illegally.

The guidance also recognises extended liability in some contractual structures.

This is particularly relevant to delivery companies because the person appearing on an app is not necessarily always the same person physically carrying out the delivery.

Account sharing and account substitution can therefore create an additional verification problem.

A system can theoretically verify one person’s immigration status while another individual actually performs the work.

Deliveroo says it has strengthened its systems

Deliveroo’s response has focused on precisely this distinction.

The company has said Rekoub was not a verified rider on its platform and that he had abused its systems to gain access.

It has also said that additional safeguards have been introduced to prevent similar abuse.

That raises an important policy question for the government: how should online platforms verify identity continuously rather than simply at the point when an account is created?

Digital immigration records and eVisas have made it easier for employers to establish a person’s right to work electronically.

The Home Office says people with eVisas can use the online service to demonstrate their immigration status and right to work.

But verification at the beginning of a relationship does not necessarily eliminate the possibility of account sharing afterwards.

That is where delivery platforms may face a different technical challenge from traditional employers.

The wider illegal-working crackdown

The debate comes as the government continues to enforce existing illegal-working rules.

The Home Office reported that 561 civil penalties were issued between January and March 2026, involving 773 illegal workers, with penalties carrying a gross value of £32.615 million. The department notes that the recoverable amount can be reduced following objections and appeals.

The government has also been developing updated guidance on right-to-work checks, including rules covering online matching services.

That suggests the issue is already receiving greater attention independently of Reform’s proposed legislation.

The political question is whether existing enforcement is sufficient or whether the law should move towards direct criminal responsibility for senior executives.

The political argument goes beyond Deliveroo

For Reform UK, the case provides an opportunity to connect several issues: illegal immigration, illegal working, corporate responsibility and public safety.

Yusuf has framed the proposed legislation as part of a wider immigration crackdown.

The party’s argument is that businesses should not be able to benefit financially from workers who are not legally entitled to work in Britain.

Other parties and policymakers may approach the question differently, focusing on enforcement of existing rules, improvements to digital verification and targeted action against fraudulent accounts rather than introducing strict criminal liability for company directors.

There is also a practical issue.

Any new law would need to define precisely who counts as the responsible decision-maker inside a large company.

Would liability fall on the chief executive, a compliance director, the board, an operations manager or the person responsible for onboarding individual riders?

And if an individual deliberately bypassed company controls, should the senior management team automatically face criminal consequences?

Those questions would have to be resolved in legislation.

A difficult balance between enforcement and accountability

The Rekoub case has placed the issue of platform verification under renewed scrutiny, but it also illustrates why policymakers need to separate different questions.

The first is whether a person has the legal right to work.

The second is whether a company or platform carried out the required checks.

The third is whether someone deliberately circumvented those controls.

And the fourth is the separate question of criminal responsibility for an individual’s subsequent actions.

A stronger verification regime could address the first three issues without necessarily establishing that a company is responsible for every crime committed by someone who has managed to bypass its systems.

That distinction will be central to any parliamentary debate over Reform’s proposed “Deliveroo Law”.

For now, there is no such strict-liability law in force.

What does exist is a substantial set of employer obligations, civil penalties and criminal offences for knowingly employing illegal workers, alongside increasingly detailed Home Office guidance for companies and online platforms.

Yusuf’s intervention therefore represents a demand for a significantly tougher approach rather than a description of current law.

The tragedy suffered by the victim in the Rekoub case has understandably intensified public attention on the issue. The political debate now centres on what responsibility companies should bear when people circumvent their systems — and how far that responsibility should extend into criminal law.