Signing Contract before background check

[SueEllen]

No, all that does is encourage the practice of only putting cleared people forward - something that IPSE has been fighting for ages.

It makes no difference.

Some only put cleared people forward regardless.

The best "conversation" I had with an agent about a job was asking him why he needed a cleared person for a permanent job. I suggested he check again with the client as the company is one well-known for taking on people and clearing them.

[fidot]

They should know how long in the worse case it takes to get cleared and warn you - again not putting you forward if you indicate it takes too long.

No, all that does is encourage the practice of only putting cleared people forward - something that IPSE has been fighting for ages.

[SueEllen]

Just to put this in perspective I've never heard of anyone having this clause and it's the first time I've seen it this forum. It's an absolute disgrace and hopefully the agents that pull this one will get outed and change their ways.

The clause is there to prevent you turning around after it has taken 2 months for you to get cleared and saying you have a contract elsewhere.

I personally would refuse to sign contract with that in as:
1. The agent should actually have done some some basic checks on you before even submitting you to the client. For example every role I've gone needing any sort of clearance they've asked if I've lived in the UK for 5 years+ with no breaks.

2. They should know how long in the worse case it takes to get cleared and warn you - again not putting you forward if you indicate it takes too long.

3. If they want to recuperate costs they should actually match their receipted costs and not be made up

[SueEllen]

Have you been given a start date yet? If not, you're still on the market.

You can't be given a start date until you have clearance.

However if you have had clearance before or even had a DBS you should know that you are clearable without problems.

I've actually had 2 clients who have been happy to have me on-site before being cleared because I turned up with an enhanced DBS certificate.

[TechJinx]

any reason you think you might not get cleared?

Most people will know if there's anything in their past that might raise warning signs.

Unless you've been really naughty or don't declare something you'll almost certainly pass it.

[northernladuk]

Just to put this in perspective I've never heard of anyone having this clause and it's the first time I've seen it this forum. It's an absolute disgrace and hopefully the agents that pull this one will get outed and change their ways.

[MrMarkyMark]

Contract says in it subject to the background check being passed.

Thats the point.
You only have a binding contract in place, once the clearance has been passed.

If you were to sign it early, below quoted clause withstanding, I can't see that you would be subject to anything on the contract.

Read the small print very very carefully.
I had a contract like this last year which said in the small print if you fail the check you are liable to pay approx £500 + VAT for wasting the agencies time! That's why they want you to sign the contract your liable if you fail the security check so stall until the checks are complete or not & keep looking.

Otherwise decide if you want to really be liable or not if you fail the security checks. My understanding is that many agencies will not enforce the £500 + VAT failure fee but I have yet to see that in writing either ..............

[LondonManc]

Have you been given a start date yet? If not, you're still on the market.

[Scruff]

I have been in similar situations and its unusual for the actual contact to be presented until the BPSS, or internal Clearance have been "passed"?

Normally, an email is exchanged, offering and accepting the contract, in principle, subject to the Clearance.

[ceebeepps]

I don't sign until the offer and contract is firm and definitely going ahead (as much as the next and final step is to turn up on start date). That way i'm not caught in any clause and free to go to whoever gets me to the final step first.
Snooze and you loose.

[uk contractor]

Read the small print very very carefully.

I had a contract like this last year which said in the small print if you fail the check you are liable to pay approx £500 + VAT for wasting the agencies time! That's why they want you to sign the contract your liable if you fail the security check so stall until the checks are complete or not & keep looking.

Otherwise decide if you want to really be liable or not if you fail the security checks. My understanding is that many agencies will not enforce the £500 + VAT failure fee but I have yet to see that in writing either ..............

[SueEllen]

What clauses are in the contract that mean you can get out of it easily?

If there aren't any don't sign

If there are sign.

Either way keep looking.

[Underbase]

Some places will let you on site before a check is complete but they wont let you near sensitive data.

I dont see a problem here.

This one doesn't, they won't let you onsite until the check is complete. But the agent is pushing for the contract to be signed. Contract says in it subject to the background check being passed.

[BolshieBastard]

Some places will let you on site before a check is complete but they wont let you near sensitive data.

I dont see a problem here.

[Underbase]

So if there is a role that won't let you go onsite before a background check is completed (one of those check what you had for lunch in 1980 type of checks) in the private sector. Is it a good idea to sign the contract before the background check, what if something stalls and it takes weeks and weeks, now the agency has you on a contract with the only real valid break clause being on their side and the lack of pass on the background check.

Is it a good idea to just say "I will sign when I am cleared?" and then keep interviewing in the mean time. Last person who took a job at this place took 2 months to clear just because previous experience was overseas.