Reply to: IR 35 issue or Not?

[LondonManc]

Plenty of traders and bankers that burned millions if not billions. If you wanna do something you do it regardless of their vetting. The same as Airport checks. In the US/UK they look up your bum but if you fly into the US/UK from God knows what country you can get away with just about anything.

Thanks for all the feedback. I understood that this was their process and not just about me, was just surprised at the amount of information requested and the checks they were running for such a short term contract yet the lack of computer security was amazing. I could just access one of their internal terminals and go to town if I was a hacker or whatever people do these days electronically.

I don't remember the MET asking me for this much stuff or when I applied to MI5 after university (I was really silly back then), wanted to be a captain in the navy or comms officer in the army at one point and went to all their open days))

Perhaps you should point it out as an operational risk issue.

[Drei]

Indeed. It's about the company's internal risk appetite for letting unvetted people have access to their systems. TalkTalk anyone?

Plenty of traders and bankers that burned millions if not billions. If you wanna do something you do it regardless of their vetting. The same as Airport checks. In the US/UK they look up your bum but if you fly into the US/UK from God knows what country you can get away with just about anything.

Thanks for all the feedback. I understood that this was their process and not just about me, was just surprised at the amount of information requested and the checks they were running for such a short term contract yet the lack of computer security was amazing. I could just access one of their internal terminals and go to town if I was a hacker or whatever people do these days electronically.
I don't remember the MET asking me for this much stuff or when I applied to MI5 after university (I was really silly back then), wanted to be a captain in the navy or comms officer in the army at one point and went to all their open days))

[LondonManc]

Indeed. It's a cover all policy. Just because the OP 'thinks' he's not doing anything risky it doesn't mean the next contractor won't be. I do think the OP needs to understand all this a little more and see the bigger picture rather than it all about 'him'.

Indeed. It's about the company's internal risk appetite for letting unvetted people have access to their systems. TalkTalk anyone?

[northernladuk]

It could just be their general operational risk policy.

I've worked in investment banking a fair bit and had more scrutiny but no access to trading systems; it's as much knowing who's in the building as anything else.

Indeed. It's a cover all policy. Just because the OP 'thinks' he's not doing anything risky it doesn't mean the next contractor won't be. I do think the OP needs to understand all this a little more and see the bigger picture rather than it all about 'him'.

[LondonManc]

Thanks. No juicy access to anything, using you own Laptops connected to guest WiFi.

It could just be their general operational risk policy.

I've worked in investment banking a fair bit and had more scrutiny but no access to trading systems; it's as much knowing who's in the building as anything else.

[Drei]

Thanks. No juicy access to anything, using you own Laptops connected to guest WiFi.

[LondonManc]

One thing I didn't mention because I missed it myself was a previous e-mail to that request where this is stated:

"Dear [No Name], RecruitSafe has been instructed by XXX to contact you with regards to carrying our pre-employment screening check for the purpose of your potential employment with their organisation. We will be carrying out a variety of background checks on their behalf including:

• Employment History Validation (apparently they will be contacting every single person I have worked for, contracted in the last 5 years)
• Qualification Validation (they will be contacting all my previous Universities, College etc to validate my studying years, courses and grades)
• Criminal Check (a security check has already been provided to the agency)
• Public Domain Searches (no idea what this is)
• Proofing Documentation - Identity, Residency, Criminal (not sure what this is)
• Credit Check (not getting a mortgage with them)

they want my consent for all of the above"

For a 3 months contract it just seems pretty excessive, never ran into this before and not sure I like the whole "employment" wording.

You're reading too much into it.

This is standard compliance on-boarding.

That said, it's common for the client to not be bothered if you're going in via a consultancy as they expect the consultancy to carry the risk. However, if you're getting immediate access to systems/some juicy IPR, then they'll want to check that you're allowed access to it. As such, it's nothing to do with IR35 and everything to do with their operational risk policy.

[SueEllen]

Going through that amount of referencing takes loads of time so most clients, not all, will only do a credit check and criminal record check plus contact a couple of people for references.

Only if you do something dishonest while in the contract will they check everything else.

Lots of companies even do this for permanent employment as you wouldn't hear stories of people being sacked for lies on their CV a few months to years after they had been in a job. In fact when I was permanent I know my full history was only checked when going for security clearance and when a company was trying to do redundancies on the cheap.

[northernladuk]

You ar3 reading too much in to it even if it says employment. If this is what the client wants and they do it to everyone then it's not an issue.

You think this is excessive wait.till you go for a DV gig.

You've got two choices now and I think you know what they are.

[Drei]

One thing I didn't mention because I missed it myself was a previous e-mail to that request where this is stated:

"Dear [No Name], XXX has been instructed by XXX to contact you with regards to carrying our pre-employment screening check for the purpose of your potential employment with their organisation. We will be carrying out a variety of background checks on their behalf including:

• Employment History Validation (apparently they will be contacting every single person I have worked for, contracted in the last 5 years)
• Qualification Validation (they will be contacting all my previous Universities, College etc to validate my studying years, courses and grades)
• Criminal Check (a security check has already been provided to the agency)
• Public Domain Searches (no idea what this is)
• Proofing Documentation - Identity, Residency, Criminal (not sure what this is)
• Credit Check (not getting a mortgage with them)

they want my consent for all of the above"

For a 3 months contract it just seems pretty excessive, never ran into this before and not sure I like the whole "employment" wording.

[Lance]

These days, if you are previously unknown to the client, then these things are often required.

Yep. almost always.

The main difference would be that if you're provided a GB passport they don't check for right to work as that's implicit with a GB passport. Not all agents understand that though.

[Fred Bloggs]

These days, if you are previously unknown to the client, then these things are often required.

[Drei]

Cheers. The Client asked for these separate from the agency. The agency didn't even know what the client was asking for. I was more worried about the additional checks, 7 year history, breaks in CV, professional certificates etc, for all these checks I might as well opt in.
Sounded too much like a permanent role check and did not wanted to give any ammo to anyone. Can't remember the last contract I took and I was asked to provide all these, a security check and all LTD info, IDs etc were provided to the agency with whom I have my contract with.

Funny thing is the Main client is another company... so I would be a sub sub contractor)
Main Client contracts a consultant company to implement a new system, the consulting company uses an agency to get additional contractors besides what they already have as permies so I am 4th down the line. 4th working/contract for 3rd working/contract for 2nd working/contract for 1st.

[northernladuk]

Does the client want it or has the agent said the client wants it?

Although the client asks the same for permies it is likely the checks are the same whatever your situation. The passport check should be done by anyone they are paying for legal reasons and so on. Don't let IR35 blind you to what the clients responsibilities are. Start of considering the same checks need to be done on every person regardless of engagement style and then work from there.

[SueEllen]

If you run your own limited you have never been unemployed. I simply point that out to agencies who ask and my accountant becomes one of my referees.