I just need to get two references ...

[Gentile]

Seems agencies do check references, I've just had an e-mail from exclientco asking me to fill in the details on the form sent as they are too busy.

Btw Am I right in thinking that companies these days do not give out any more info other than Name, position and dates worked. Anything else is company confidential?
I've also had some companies come back saying they do not provide references for contractors as they are not employees and you have to go to the agency.

These guys wanted as well date of birth, (which I believe cannot be disclosed under the age discrimination act), Sickness and disciplinary record, Performance and ability record and Would you hire this person again.

Sounds like a painful, bureaucratic and pointless process. When I applied for the FCO, the recruitment process took 9 months from start to finish, including a DV check (which involved a FCO vetter actually meeting my referees) along the way. Some of those same DV referees were my references for HR purposes as well. One of them in particular, a Police Chief Inspector that I know, called me up to say he'd received another form requesting the exact same details he'd already provided. I explained that the DV and HR people were different individuals, though they ask a lot of the same questions. He said he knew that, but that he'd had a second request from the HR department. I apologised for his inconvenience, gave the HR people a call to find out what was going on, and between us all we decided that the first form my referee had filled out must have got lost in the system. Not very reasurring when it's meant to be a confidential process for a DV-cleared job. Still, I asked my referee if he would mind filling in the form a second time. He did so, and all seemed to be rectified, until a third form requesting the exact same details again arrived. This was the fourth time this poor guy had been disturbed just to help me out, including the in-person interview he'd been good enough to do for the DV.

He did send the referee form back a record third time in the end, but the shambles that was their reference checking 'process' was one of the reasons I ended up not taking that role in the end, after nine months of a recruitment process and completing the DV check. Amongst other reservations I'd built up over that time, I figured if they were that disorganised before I'd even started, the work itself was likely to be painfully bureaucratic and disorganised as well.

[norrahe]

Sounds like a painful, bureaucratic and pointless process. When I applied for the FCO, the recruitment process took 9 months from start to finish, including a DV check (which involved a FCO vetter actually meeting my referees) along the way. Some of those same DV referees were my references for HR purposes as well. One of them in particular, a Police Chief Inspector that I know, called me up to say he'd received another form requesting the exact same details he'd already provided. I explained that the DV and HR people were different individuals, though they ask a lot of the same questions. He said he knew that, but that he'd had a second request from the HR department. I apologised for his inconvenience, gave the HR people a call to find out what was going on, and between us all we decided that the first form my referee had filled out must have got lost in the system. Not very reasurring when it's meant to be a confidential process for a DV-cleared job. Still, I asked my referee if he would mind filling in the form a second time. He did so, and all seemed to be rectified, until a third form requesting the exact same details again arrived. This was the fourth time this poor guy had been disturbed just to help me out, including the in-person interview he'd been good enough to do for the DV.

He did send the referee form back a record third time in the end, but the shambles that was their reference checking 'process' was one of the reasons I ended up not taking that role in the end, after nine months of a recruitment process and completing the DV check. Amongst other reservations I'd built up over that time, I figured if they were that disorganised before I'd even started, the work itself was likely to be painfully bureaucratic and disorganised as well.

I also forgot to add these guys wanted reason for leaving as well.

I know in permie roles that is a big no-no.

[BolshieBastard]

Sounds like a painful, bureaucratic and pointless process. When I applied for the FCO, the recruitment process took 9 months from start to finish, including a DV check (which involved a FCO vetter actually meeting my referees) along the way. Some of those same DV referees were my references for HR purposes as well. One of them in particular, a Police Chief Inspector that I know, called me up to say he'd received another form requesting the exact same details he'd already provided. I explained that the DV and HR people were different individuals, though they ask a lot of the same questions. He said he knew that, but that he'd had a second request from the HR department. I apologised for his inconvenience, gave the HR people a call to find out what was going on, and between us all we decided that the first form my referee had filled out must have got lost in the system. Not very reasurring when it's meant to be a confidential process for a DV-cleared job. Still, I asked my referee if he would mind filling in the form a second time. He did so, and all seemed to be rectified, until a third form requesting the exact same details again arrived. This was the fourth time this poor guy had been disturbed just to help me out, including the in-person interview he'd been good enough to do for the DV.

He did send the referee form back a record third time in the end, but the shambles that was their reference checking 'process' was one of the reasons I ended up not taking that role in the end, after nine months of a recruitment process and completing the DV check. Amongst other reservations I'd built up over that time, I figured if they were that disorganised before I'd even started, the work itself was likely to be painfully bureaucratic and disorganised as well.

Security checking is a bleedin' shambles. I was recently on a job that required CTC clearance. Client didnt mind I didnt have it before I was on site (yet another agency myth busted) either. They were more concerned about the enhanced CRB check and wouldnt let me see 'live' data until this came through (about 3 weeks after I started so another agency myth busted).

But, part way through my CTC check, the vetting people (NOMS) went from a forms based check to a system completed check so they binned my application and insisted I start all over again!

There was no real reason to this though as they told me they printed the system completed form and no other part of the process had changed. They didnt seem to have an answer when I asked my sponsor why couldnt they have completed those applications being processed and action any new ones via their system! Crackers.

Regarding referees, I find its generally only the small agencies looking for leads who ask for refs up front, no doubt looking for leads. I find banks LTSB in particular want all sorts of referees declared and provided up front on application forms.

[BolshieBastard]

I also forgot to add these guys wanted reason for leaving as well.

I know in permie roles that is a big no-no.

I recently completed the checking form for an LTSB contract role. They wanted 'reason for leaving' every fricking contract role. 'End of contract' was an option but, come on!

[Gentile]

Regarding referees, I find its generally only the small agencies looking for leads who ask for refs up front, no doubt looking for leads. I find banks LTSB in particular want all sorts of referees declared and provided up front on application forms.

I find the opposite, actually. It's by no means all of them, but a couple of the big ones do still play this tired game of trying to pump you for information whenever you speak with them. Hays are particularly notable for it.

[Taita]

Security checking is a bleedin' shambles. I was recently on a job that required CTC clearance. Client didnt mind I didnt have it before I was on site (yet another agency myth busted) either. They were more concerned about the enhanced CRB check and wouldnt let me see 'live' data until this came through (about 3 weeks after I started so another agency myth busted).

But, part way through my CTC check, the vetting people (NOMS) went from a forms based check to a system completed check so they binned my application and insisted I start all over again!

There was no real reason to this though as they told me they printed the system completed form and no other part of the process had changed. They didnt seem to have an answer when I asked my sponsor why couldnt they have completed those applications being processed and action any new ones via their system! Crackers.

Regarding referees, I find its generally only the small agencies looking for leads who ask for refs up front, no doubt looking for leads. I find banks LTSB in particular want all sorts of referees declared and provided up front on application forms.

"Client didnt mind I didnt have it before I was on site (yet another agency myth busted)"

Actually it depends on the Client. Some are very insistent that all clearances are completed before starting on site and some are less rigid. I don't know about today but a few years ago a very well known software house would let you start but kick you out if any clearance/reference failed and would not pay the agency. It was not uncommon for the agencies to reflect that penalty in the contractor's contract.

[norrahe]

"Client didnt mind I didnt have it before I was on site (yet another agency myth busted)"

Actually it depends on the Client. Some are very insistent that all clearances are completed before starting on site and some are less rigid. I don't know about today but a few years ago a very well known software house would let you start but kick you out if any clearance/reference failed and would not pay the agency. It was not uncommon for the agencies to reflect that penalty in the contractor's contract.

Does depend on the client, for one organisation I had to undergo a credit reference and CRB check, all done on line and six weeks in to the contract, I received an e-mail at clientco saying my checks were all done and dusted.

Same with last client, was onsite and it took 3 weeks for the CRB check to get done, but as long as I had applied for it they were happy to let me start.

Some of the banks, you will not get on site till you have every last detail checked.

[Ignis Fatuus]

...These guys wanted as well date of birth, (which I believe cannot be disclosed under the age discrimination act...

Can be asked for, and can be disclosed. Under the Age Discrimination Act an employer cannot discriminate on the grounds of age. That would be your Ltd Co I suppose.

[Ignis Fatuus]

I find the opposite, actually. It's by no means all of them, but a couple of the tulip ones do still play this tired game of trying to pump you for information whenever you speak with them. Hays are particularly notable for it.

FTFY

[Taita]

Can be asked for, and can be disclosed. Under the Age Discrimination Act an employer cannot discriminate on the grounds of age. That would be your Ltd Co I suppose.

Date of Birth is a standard component of Unique Identification so there is no point in getting shirty about it. Half the world is already in possession of this personal information - NHS, Benefits & Pensions Office, Passport Office, DVLA, Building Society, Banks, Credit Providers, dating agencies, consumer surveyors, loyalty card providers, insurers and more that I cannot immediately remember but it is probably in your mobile phone contract!

Thus it can be required and used for an infinite number of purposes but cannot be used to discriminate against an individual in employment. Unfortunately, it is up to the individual to prove misuse/abuse.: