Face to face id check, copy of degree certificate, dividend frequency

[DallasDad]

Hays did 1 & 2 with me and took up the 'two' references I provided (both references sent me copies of what they provided).

That was post offer and email confirmation.
Will I do it without a verbal offer, probably.

[SueEllen]

Wish I was as well off as you lot that can afford to turn down a gig cause they don't want to answer a couple of pointless questions.

I actually ask them why they need the data. I don't give people data they don't need especially when some companies aren't good at keeping documents private.

[javadude]

1. Agreed - at most expensive restaurant I can find. Better still, at a CUK meet up when they buy drinks all night.

I get an entire coffee on them. Awesome.

To know how often I take dividends. - It depends. As and when need be. No specific timescales. Sorted

That pretty much sums up my dividend frequency anyway so that'll be as good as they get.

I actually ask them why they need the data. I don't give people data they don't need especially when some companies aren't good at keeping documents private.

Yeah I tried that. It's part of their "compliance" checks on behalf of the clients. I bet the clients don't care about half that stuff. If I'm not up to scratch then all they need to do is point me in the direction of the door.

Anyway thanks all. That gives me some ideas on how to answer. Now just need to sort out that £1,000,000 professional indemnity insurance...

[SueEllen]

Yeah I tried that. It's part of their "compliance" checks on behalf of the clients. I bet the clients don't care about half that stuff.

You should ask them to quote the exact legal reason they want an answer to the last 2 questions.

They likely want to ensure you aren't using an MSC, an off-shore umbrella or tax avoidance scheme. However the way they are doing it means you can answer truthfully but still be using one of those as how they are asking is not legally binding.

[newmove]

is this Allegis group?

[psychocandy]

Ok so it's been about 5 years since I last had a contract through an agency (been fortunate with some direct contracts) and I know things have moved on a bit but really? Is it now normal for an agent to ask for things like:

Face to face id check.
Copy of A level and degree certificates (from 27 years ago!)
To know how often I take dividends.
Agreeing to notify them before I make any change to shareholding/directors.

(The end client is not financial or public sector.)

1. If I can without too much hassle. If I can't then no.
2. If you REALLY want.
3. None of your business.
4. None of your business.

[northernladuk]

1. If I can without too much hassle. If I can't then no.
2. If you REALLY want.
3. None of your business.
4. None of your business.

Good one... cause claiming JSA is a much better option.

[northernladuk]

OP, what is your Opt in/out status? If you are Opted In they are obliged to carry out more diligence on you than opted out.

The regulation states that the agency must do the following...

Confirmation to be obtained about a work-seeker

19. Neither an agency nor an employment business may introduce or supply a work-seeker to a hirer unless it has obtained confirmation—

(a) of the identity of the work-seeker;

(b) that the work-seeker has the experience, training, qualifications and any authorisation which the hirer considers are necessary, or which are required by law or by any professional body, to work in the position which the hirer seeks to fill; and

So if you Opt In you are also agreeing to item 1 and 2 so can't really throw it back in their faces....

Also reading on there is a particular section dedicated to the situation where more than one agency or employment business is involved. This would include us as we would be an employee of our LTDs? It would be Agency --> Ltd --> Workseeker wouldn't it? If that is the case there is a whole host of other things to consider which, you could argue, is why the agency is (rightly or wrongly) asking some questions that might appear daft. You can kind of see why the agency is flailing about trying to meet these obligations. It says...

Situations where more than one agency or employment business is involved

23.—(1) Neither an agency nor an employment business (“A”) may enter into any contract or arrangement with another agency or employment business (“B”) with a view to B providing or facilitating the provision to a work-seeker or a hirer of any services of an agency or an employment business unless—

(a)A has made enquiries to ascertain that B is suitable to act as an agency or employment business and received satisfactory answers to those enquiries;

(b)A and B have agreed in what capacity each of them will act, namely whether as an agency or an employment business;

(c)where A is acting as an agency in relation to a work-seeker whom it is permitted by regulation 26(1) to charge for work-finding services,—

(i)A has ensured that the hirer has been informed that any payment due to the work-seeker must be paid either directly to the work-seeker, or to A, rather than to B; or

(ii)where A and B have agreed that B may receive any payment due to the work-seeker—

(aa)they have agreed that B shall pass the monies to A or to the work-seeker within 10 days of receipt by B of the same; and

(bb)provided that the applicable law of the agreement between A and B does not prevent it, they have agreed that the work-seeker may enforce the term referred to in sub-paragraph (c)(ii)(aa) in the event that B fails to pass the monies to A or the work-seeker within the 10 day period referred to therein; and

(d)the terms of the agreement reached between A and B in accordance with sub-paragraphs (b) and (c)(ii) are recorded in paper form or by electronic means.
.
(2) Neither an agency nor an employment business (“A”) may assign or sub-contract any of its obligations under any contract or arrangement with a work-seeker or hirer to another agency or employment business (“B”) unless—

(a)A has obtained the prior consent of the work-seeker or hirer for whom it acts to B performing those obligations in place of A;

(b)the terms upon which those obligations are assigned or sub-contracted are recorded in a single document; and

(c)A has given the work-seeker or hirer, for whom it acts, a copy of that document.

I'm not very good at reading legal blurb but the above would indicate to me that there are obligations to check that the work seeker will get the money. Any changing to Shareholding or Directorships may mean that the agency can no longer guarantee that the work seeker is getting the money so have a right to ask for any changes to keep themselves covered?

I can see how the question could be a sledgehammer approach and may not even meet the criteria but I am starting to wonder if the agencies are asking for the right reasons, but just maybe the wrong question?

I don't think it's as black and white as 'None of their business' if you are Opted In.

[Troll]

I recently had to do a Skype session while holding up my passport photo page - which was a new one on me

Very disappointed that the bird doing the compliance that sounded so hot on the phone turned out to be a bit of a dragon

[northernladuk]

I recently had to do a Skype session while holding up my passport photo page - which was a new one on me

If you apply for a PokerStars account (either them or one of the other poker sites) you have to send a photo of you holding your passport in now. They blocked existing accounts and you had to do it retrospectively to get access to your account

Very disappointed that the bird doing the compliance that sounded so hot on the phone turned out to be a bit of a dragon

Surely you've sussed this out by now? Always assume this is the case and wait to be proven otherwise... For some reason you rarely are.