CRB check

[perplexed]

Today, a line manager at the end client dumped on our desks CRB forms.

To assuage pen pushers audit requirements at the client, staff need CRB checking.

Really reluctant to do it.

Why?

It wants original documentation. I've had original documentation go missing in the past and quite frankly, don't want the hassle of potentially having to get it replaced.

Aside from that, my question is surely this is something that should be pushed onto the agency side rather than from the client - after all, I'm not an employee of the client.

I can understand the regulations surrounding say, supplying someone able to work in the UK. What I dislike about this is that the check is now being forced / applied when there's 6 weeks of the damn contract left, so there's clearly no "fit for purpose" rationale behind it...

Any thoughts?

EDIT:

Some extra info.

Back of the form, box contains end client organization name.

Above that is "Position applied for".

Further on, the application type is either "new post holder", "existing post holder" and "existing post holder who is being re-checked".

That all strikes me as reading as permie-ish. Which tends to ring the odd alarm bell.

[craig1]

Just tell them that they need to go through your agency. Also, drop in that if the role changes to a CRB checked role that it is likely to command a significantly higher daily rate than your current rate.

Also, is your job a sensitive job that would normally require a CRB check (linky), if not push back and ask them why they need one. A lot of companies are abusing this system.

[perplexed]

I'll definitely be contacting the agency over this.

The email sent out refers to "recent audit findings". Whatever that means. It also stated that the end client would be able to answer questions arising from any future tendering processes - which are clearly nothing to do with us given we've been hired for specific current work.

My role has nothing to do with those criteria as noted on the link you povided. Standard business work, they have clients who have data.

If CRB was a worry for that, then it would have been applicable from the start of the contract. After all, if I was looking to say steal data, I'd have had 5 months to have done it.

The role won't be changing during the contract term.

[BolshieBastard]

Today, a line manager at the end client dumped on our desks CRB forms.

To assuage pen pushers audit requirements at the client, staff need CRB checking.

Really reluctant to do it.

Why?

It wants original documentation. I've had original documentation go missing in the past and quite frankly, don't want the hassle of potentially having to get it replaced.

Aside from that, my question is surely this is something that should be pushed onto the agency side rather than from the client - after all, I'm not an employee of the client.

I can understand the regulations surrounding say, supplying someone able to work in the UK. What I dislike about this is that the check is now being forced / applied when there's 6 weeks of the damn contract left, so there's clearly no "fit for purpose" rationale behind it...

Any thoughts?

EDIT:

Some extra info.

Back of the form, box contains end client organization name.

Above that is "Position applied for".

Further on, the application type is either "new post holder", "existing post holder" and "existing post holder who is being re-checked".

That all strikes me as reading as permie-ish. Which tends to ring the odd alarm bell.

Do you want to continue working with the client or not? If not, dont fill in the forms, they'll soon walk you off site.

I dont see what the problem is here. The client wants you to complete a crb check. You fill it in and provide the original documents. If you dont want the docs out of your sight, say so.

While its unusual for check forms to be issued once on site, you'd have had to take them prior to starting anyway.

As for CRB checking leading to a higher rate, I dont think so but you could try. I suspect I know what the answer will be.

[perplexed]

Bolshie, the point being that CRB is not needed for this role.

It was firmly indicated in the email that it's an "audit issue" and so the client can answer any questions arising from any future tendering processes - all of which are irrelevant to this role, which ends in less than two months time.

[eek]

Bolshie, the point being that CRB is not needed for this role.

It was firmly indicated in the email that it's an "audit issue" and so the client can answer any questions arising from any future tendering processes - all of which are irrelevant to this role, which ends in less than two months time.

You are going about it the wrong way. Hand the information to the client and thank him for the extension. The statement "I assume the contract extension paperwork is in the post" should suitable scare them.

[SueEllen]

Bolshie, the point being that CRB is not needed for this role.

It was firmly indicated in the email that it's an "audit issue" and so the client can answer any questions arising from any future tendering processes - all of which are irrelevant to this role, which ends in less than two months time.

I was about to ask you what role you did that you required a CRB check.

However as you aren't in one then it's an abuse of the system. I would be tempted to ask the client directly in writing - why you are being asked to be CRB checked as you aren't working directly with the groups - children, elderly, disabled and other vulnerable people - that the checking is for.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employme...wjob/DG_195809

[BolshieBastard]

Bolshie, the point being that CRB is not needed for this role.

It was firmly indicated in the email that it's an "audit issue" and so the client can answer any questions arising from any future tendering processes - all of which are irrelevant to this role, which ends in less than two months time.

I appreciate CRB may not be needed for the role. However, if the client wants it, your options are to agree or risk potentially being walked off site and any extension withdrawn.

Is it worth the risk? In my last two finance jobs, I've had to have Scottish Disclosure (the scots version of CRB). The role didnt warrant it imo but I completed it all the same. If I didnt, I wouldnt have got the job.

[perplexed]

You are going about it the wrong way. Hand the information to the client and thank him for the extension. The statement "I assume the contract extension paperwork is in the post" should suitable scare them.

There won't be an extension. At least one contractor has been asked to go permie. End client don't seem to be the most aware about contractors and the differences from permies.

Even if an extension was offered, it would be refused, tbh.

I guess my concern is more along the lines of having any form in the hands of clueless people which has no relevance whatsoever to the terms of the contract or work arising in the duration of that contract, which has been applied as a blanket "future tender" check purely to answer questions their future clients may have. Especially when permies and contractors are being treated precisely the same way in this matter.

If the contract required CRB - which it doesn't - then I'd have been happy to have filled out the required form prior to starting the gig.

[pootle]

Today, a line manager at the end client dumped on our desks CRB forms.

To assuage pen pushers audit requirements at the client, staff need CRB checking.

Really reluctant to do it.

Why?

There are 2 types of CRB check,

Disclosure Scotland-which checks for unspent convictions, and a Full CRB check which discloses everything.

Usually a full CRB check can only be requested if you are in an excepted occupation, as per link provided by Sue Ellen.

The controversy arises when clients/agencies submit requests for a Full CRB check stating an excepted job title which differs to the actual non-excepted job title. This smacks of abuse of the system.