State of the Market

[PCTNN]

Most contracts won't do any background screening although I imagine in some industries/sectors they might have to.

In government and banking/finance they always do background checks.

Having said that, I think the agency is in charge of doing the checks...not the client. And they only do checks on successful applicants, so I'm sure agencies don't want to dig up much dirt and whatever they find - if irrelevant and not a deal breaker such as a permanent role portrayed as a contract - they'll just look the other way because if they bring it up to the client that's their margin gone.

[eek]

Leaving a role off a CV is in no way fraud.

so when asked what were you doing between March and July 2019 and lying by saying you were unemployed and then presenting a secondary bank account when asked for your bank statements (which implies main bank account) isn't trying to misrepresent facts. The simple fact is that the contract was only awarded to Sira as Sira misrepresentied the facts.

So let's see what Fraudulent Misrepresentation is as defined by a law firm Fraudulent misrepresentation – a claimant-friendly case - Walker Morris which says

A misrepresentation is: an untrue statement of fact or law; upon which a party relies in being induced to enter a contract;

Fraudulent misrepresentation is the most serious and requires the false representation to have been made knowingly, without belief in its truth, or recklessly as to its truth.

So I will leave things there..

[quackhandle]

It's gone crap again.

qh

[sira]

so when asked what were you doing between March and July 2019 and lying by saying you were unemployed and then presenting a secondary bank account when asked for your bank statements (which implies main bank account) isn't trying to misrepresent facts. The simple fact is that the contract was only awarded do Sira misrepresenting the facts.

So let's see what Fraudulent Misrepresentation is as defined by a law firm Fraudulent misrepresentation – a claimant-friendly case - Walker Morris which says



So I will leave things there..

"Main bank account" wasnt requested. "A bank statement" was requested. Again, there's no law which stipulates that you have to disclose your financial affairs, or every single place you have worked. Its just that this particular agency refused to accept any other type of evidence.

If you had to list absolutely every single job you've done, half the UK workforce would be committing fraud.

[CheeseSlice]

It's gone crap again.

This thread, or the market ?

[eek]

"Main bank account" wasnt requested. "A bank statement" was requested. Again, there's no law which stipulates that you have to disclose your financial affairs, or every single place you have worked. Its just that this particular agency refused to accept any other type of evidence.

If you had to list absolutely every single job you've done, half the UK workforce would be committing fraud.

Whatever - but let's repeat the definition again for argument sake

Fraudulent misrepresentation is the most serious and requires the false representation to have been made knowingly, without belief in its truth, or recklessly as to its truth.

And let's remember that the question being asked of you would be to confirm what your work history over the past x years was....

You can argue all you want but it won't change the reality when asked about what you have been doing for the last x years the information matched the false representation on your CV and not the truth...

[sira]

Whatever - but let's repeat the definition again for argument sake



And let's remember that the question being asked of you was to confirm what your work history over the past x years was....

You can argue all you want but it won't change the reality when asked about what you have been doing for the last x years the information matched the false representation on your CV and not the truth...

Whatever- but lets repeat that there is no law that stipulates that it is a legal requirement to disclosure your financial affairs or every company you have worked for. If it was a legal requirement, HMRC would disclose all the data to companies so that they can cross-check.

You just sent over some precedent article on misrepresentation, but in reality misrepresentation happens on a daily basis by both employers and employees. If it was down to you everyone would be suing each other left, right and centre.

In reality nobody can find a job at the moment, everyones CV is in a mess so people will do anything they can to get back on payroll. You need a dose of reality.

[eek]

Whatever- but lets repeat that there is no law that stipulates that it is a legal requirement to disclosure your financial affairs or every company you have worked for. If it was a legal requirement, HMRC would disclose all the data to companies so that they can cross-check.

You just sent over some precedent article on misrepresentation, but in reality misrepresentation happens on a daily basis by both employers and employees. If it was down to you everyone would be suing each other left, right and centre.

You have the idea that the people checking your employment history have been asked to validate your CV - they won't have been they will have been asked to check your employment history for the past x years. That is a different question to the one you think it is and that is a big issue as your CV lies about that history and your cover up then duplicated that lie. Now in reality it may just be that they wish to check that you haven't been in prison but

I have seen people walked off site after 3 weeks without pay because of similar tricks - now you may have got away with it but that doesn't mean it's a sensible thing to suggest others should do so.

So yes, you can do it if you have to but I wouldn't be suggesting it to others without blooming large caveats (which my posts are). Its a bloody stupid thing to do and it definitely does have legal consequences no matter how much you cannot grasp the actual issue and how slim the risk is...

[quackhandle]

This thread, or the market ?

Maybe both?

qh

[sira]

The agent would have been asked to check your employment history for the past x years - your CV lied about that history and your checks then duplicated that lie.

I have seen people walked off site after 2 weeks without pay because of similar tricks - now you may have got away with it but that doesn't mean it's a sensible thing to suggest others should do so.

You can do it if you have to but I wouldn't be suggesting it without blooming large caveats (which my posts are) its a bloody stupid thing to do and it definitely does have legal consequences no matter how much you cannot grasp the actual issue and how slim the risk is...

Yeah and in a court of law, one can argue that a particular role is not considered part of someones work history if they choose it not to be. If you've done 10 jobs in financial services and then couldn't get a job during the pandemic and worked as an amazon delivery driver and you didnt want to put it on your CV, I think a judge would understand that. At the end of the day a CV is a marketing tool, not a legal document. Furthermore you can argue that the employer may discriminate against you for working a delivery job.

You're positioning your argument as if the law is black and white, but its not.

And lastly, you can sit and accuse people of lying - this isn't a court of law. So I suggest you rein yourself in.

As I said in my previous posts, labelling a permanent job as a contract job is far worse. Which is what you were recommending..