Security Clearance (SC) Q&A Read first before asking questions

[zappakat]

Cheers Mal, I had a feeling that was the case but I wasn't 100% sure.

I just got the email through last night and there's no-one else left here who's been through the process.

[psychocandy]

I was SC two years so its expired now. Had it again today, client won't accept applications unless your SC is current.

Surely, its a much quicker process to resurrect an SC rather than start one from scratch?

Also, haven't read the entire thread but I understand its a bit naughty of client/agent insisting that SC is a prerequisite? Happens all the time though and bugger all gets done about it.

[Dark Black]

Clearance goes with the role. Your current clearance stops when the role does, not when you leave it. And the assessment is to check your current role-based clearance is sufficient for the new role.

So the quick answer is "nothing at all".

Deep, isn't it...

I've just been caught out with this - I finished a contract in August last year for which I had clearance. I took some time out for family reasons and to manage a deceased estate, by the time that was sorted it was xmas. Net result was that I didn't secure another contract till Feb this year.

The new client was supposed to transfer my clearance (was required for the contract), however it was only a short (3 months) contract for a very specific project with no prospect of a renewal. Since finishing I've secured another gig only to be told that the previous client hadn't finished the transfer process and so, as my clearance was still held by the previous (the one I left last August - still with me? ) they (new client) were going to have to get me re-vetted from scratch since there wasn't enough time to transfer my existing clearance before it would lapse.

They are prepared to do this but it's delayed the start for another 4 - 6 weeks (est) while this gets done. I suppose I should count myself lucky that the new client is prepared to wait and sponsor me for fresh clearance. I do wonder if the previous client even bothered with the clearance transfer at all...

Didn't ever occur to me that this could happen - I'd always naively assumed I'd be OK as long I stated a new contract (needing clearance) within the 12-month window. Be warned!

[monkfish]

new agency practice, not impressed

Here's a twist on an old favourite.

Agency insisting on SC document to be returned to them "for checking of references as they do that for client".

I am equally insistent that document is a private document between myself and Security Controller of client.

Agency still insist they need to see it. I am equally insistent that its nothing to do with them.

I think this is a potential spin on "we just need two references" but somewhat alarming in that agency is poking their nose into affairs that do not concern them. They are not List X and I do not believe they are entitled to see a copy of that document. Whilst I have "nowt to hide" I'd rather my personal details not be spread about the place. Thoughts?

[malvolio]

Here's a twist on an old favourite.

Agency insisting on SC document to be returned to them "for checking of references as they do that for client".

I am equally insistent that document is a private document between myself and Security Controller of client.

Agency still insist they need to see it. I am equally insistent that its nothing to do with them.

I think this is a potential spin on "we just need two references" but somewhat alarming in that agency is poking their nose into affairs that do not concern them. They are not List X and I do not believe they are entitled to see a copy of that document. Whilst I have "nowt to hide" I'd rather my personal details not be spread about the place. Thoughts?

Check if the document is marked "Restricted" or "Condfidential". If it is, you can't show it to anyone who is not cleared to handle it. If they want a copy they can ask the clearance authority for a copy, who can make the decision.

[northernladuk]

Here's a twist on an old favourite.

Agency insisting on SC document to be returned to them "for checking of references as they do that for client".

I am equally insistent that document is a private document between myself and Security Controller of client.

Agency still insist they need to see it. I am equally insistent that its nothing to do with them.

I think this is a potential spin on "we just need two references" but somewhat alarming in that agency is poking their nose into affairs that do not concern them. They are not List X and I do not believe they are entitled to see a copy of that document. Whilst I have "nowt to hide" I'd rather my personal details not be spread about the place. Thoughts?

Could you not get confirmation that your SC is in place? That should be enough to satisfy the check? Without dates and the details this should be enough to satisfy the agency and not cause any concern over visibility of private information?

[stek]

All they ever ask for to check mine is my DOB

[malvolio]

All they ever ask for to check mine is my DOB

Try telling them that is illegal under the age discrimination laws ...

[monkfish]

Could you not get confirmation that your SC is in place? That should be enough to satisfy the check? Without dates and the details this should be enough to satisfy the agency and not cause any concern over visibility of private information?

Oh it most certainly is, and confirmed by client. Funnily enough have you tried speaking with any of the vetting authorities? They wont communicate at all with individuals - just refer you back to sponsor each and every time.

Original issue averted today by tipping up to clients security controller with ID documents etc. Obviously happy for client to reference as appropriate. During course of conversation it transpired that "tier 1 agency offered to take on all referencing so we agreed - they can put more resources at it than us. Nobody's ever objected before."

The cyncial part of me says they actually mean "they can employ some 18-year old who was selling sports gear 3 months ago to nose through private paperwork". I do however object as the agency has no remit whatsoever.

But averted anyway as client has confirmed they will be carrying out checks themselves.

I think this is a dangerous precedence for agencies to try and set.

[VectraMan]

Here's a question: should I put SC on my CV? Should I put it in big letters at the top so agents can easily see it, or just mention it under the relevant job history entry, or perhaps not at all?

What do others do?