Reply to: SC disappeared - complete nightmare!

[psychocandy]

It's not hard. Check with your previous SSO when you are applying for a role that needs clearance. They will know your current status, and will have to be involved in any transfers of clearance to a new client anyway,

Is there something in your makeup that means you can't think for yourself, or are you just trying to pass the time with these inane questions?

Ummm. I did all of this?

In answer to 2nd part, yes its fun.

[malvolio]

It's not hard. Check with your previous SSO when you are applying for a role that needs clearance. They will know your current status, and will have to be involved in any transfers of clearance to a new client anyway,

Is there something in your makeup that means you can't think for yourself, or are you just trying to pass the time with these inane questions?

[northernladuk]

So how exactly do you suggest checking clearance? Emailing the cabinet office on a regular basis like once a month? (Umm excuse me I asked you last month but just checking...).

To be fair if you'd done that just once you'd not be in the situation you'd be in.

Surely having a letter advising you are cleared until said date then remaining in the same role you got cleared for is enough?

Clearly not.

[psychocandy]

It lies with the local site security officer, actually. Although it is sensible to know what state your clearance is at all times anyway, since things can change that will affect it, such as finishing the role for which it was granted...

As for discussing it at all, clearance issues are covered by the OSA, which states very early on that beyond saying you possess clearance (which you never do, but you know what I mean) you are not to discuss or disclose your clearance level to anyone who is not entitled to know it (which includes agencies, rather awkwardly for some...)

So how exactly do you suggest checking clearance? Emailing the cabinet office on a regular basis like once a month? (Umm excuse me I asked you last month but just checking...).

Surely having a letter advising you are cleared until said date then remaining in the same role you got cleared for is enough?

[malvolio]

So the safest thing on a public internet forum would be to avoid the subject, or understand what you can/cannot say and avoid referring to yourself.

Got it.

If I ever needed to have a grasp of what was entailed, you've helped clear it up. I wonder will your words help clear up the OP's personal situation as detailed out by himself. Somehow I doubt it.

Well doubt away but you'd be wrong.

It's perfectly simple - regardless of any documentation extant or invisible, he no longer has any clearance and if he wants to get a job that requires it - assuming he can get past the idiots insisting that it be in place already - then he will need to be cleared again. Which is something that was said at the start of the thread.

And you can discuss the process as much as you like. Our existence on here has been anonymised, hasn't it? And we're all talking theoretically anyway, aren't we?

[WTFH]

As for discussing it at all, clearance issues are covered by the OSA, which states very early on that beyond saying you possess clearance (which you never do, but you know what I mean) you are not to discuss or disclose your clearance level to anyone who is not entitled to know it (which includes agencies, rather awkwardly for some...)

So the safest thing on a public internet forum would be to avoid the subject, or understand what you can/cannot say and avoid referring to yourself.

Got it.

If I ever needed to have a grasp of what was entailed, you've helped clear it up. I wonder will your words help clear up the OP's personal situation as detailed out by himself. Somehow I doubt it.

[Lance]

So if it was you you'd shrug your shoulders and say hey ho then? I doubt it.

if the new client wants you they'll just sponsor you again. It takes a few weeks if the fast track it.

[malvolio]

Is the responsibility to confirm having valid access with BIES or the individual?
If it's with the individual, then his admissions in this thread could have legal implications

It lies with the local site security officer, actually. Although it is sensible to know what state your clearance is at all times anyway, since things can change that will affect it, such as finishing the role for which it was granted...

As for discussing it at all, clearance issues are covered by the OSA, which states very early on that beyond saying you possess clearance (which you never do, but you know what I mean) you are not to discuss or disclose your clearance level to anyone who is not entitled to know it (which includes agencies, rather awkwardly for some...)

[WTFH]

I can tell you I wouldn’t still be obsessing over it 10 days later.

Your best case scenario is either BIES “finds” your clearance, or they admit they let you access secure information without clearance which they will not want to do.

so you can’t investigate the first without running the risk of the second. BEIS will eventually stop replying to your emails (I’m surprised they haven’t already)

Is the responsibility to confirm having valid access with BIES or the individual?
If it's with the individual, then his admissions in this thread could have legal implications

[SimonMac]

So if it was you you'd shrug your shoulders and say hey ho then? I doubt it.

I can tell you I wouldn’t still be obsessing over it 10 days later.

Your best case scenario is either BIES “finds” your clearance, or they admit they let you access secure information without clearance which they will not want to do.

so you can’t investigate the first without running the risk of the second. BEIS will eventually stop replying to your emails (I’m surprised they haven’t already)

[malvolio]

Well even if they found it it's technically lapsed because it's not been used for a year. I find it very difficult to believe even if they found it they would apply it retrospectively. Just because you should have had it for that period you technically haven't. I don't think they are in the business of backdating access to sensitive information even if it's really not fair. It's a proper quandry this one.

Not really. It's just one more poor job-seeking sod into the clutches of the dysfunctional world of security clearance. Of course, most people that have it in place tend to keep an eye on its status, especially when they are about to leave a role...

But as you say, his has gone and it's back to square one and harsh reality

[northernladuk]

Maybe not. However, speaking to a nice lady at the last place, she says they made a huge mess of things a few years ago merging into one system and a lot of stuff got "lost". She said that recently she has had "asked" another government dept 7 times then they eventually found the clearance and reinstated it.

Well even if they found it it's technically lapsed because it's not been used for a year. I find it very difficult to believe even if they found it they would apply it retrospectively. Just because you should have had it for that period you technically haven't. I don't think they are in the business of backdating access to sensitive information even if it's really not fair. It's a proper quandry this one.

[psychocandy]

What are you hoping the outcome will be? UKSV as the single source of truth say you don't have clearance, how can BIES tell them otherwise? BIES won't be able to overrule UKSV and won't offer to put you though it again as you're contract with them has ended.

I am not sure how much clearer it can be put, you do not have SC so you cannot say you do when applying for roles that want SC

So if it was you you'd shrug your shoulders and say hey ho then? I doubt it.

[psychocandy]

Unfortuantely this. BIES can't find it, UKSV can't find it so it's pretty clear it doesn't exist. To be fair I didn't see how there was going to be any other outcome from what you told us already. Your client checked and couldn't find it. It's not something they'll just re-instate cause someone has messed up. Nothing else to do here I am afraid.

Maybe not. However, speaking to a nice lady at the last place, she says they made a huge mess of things a few years ago merging into one system and a lot of stuff got "lost". She said that recently she has had "asked" another government dept 7 times then they eventually found the clearance and reinstated it.

[northernladuk]

What are you hoping the outcome will be? UKSV as the single source of truth say you don't have clearance, how can BIES tell them otherwise? BIES won't be able to overrule UKSV and won't offer to put you though it again as you're contract with them has ended.

I am not sure how much clearer it can be put, you do not have SC so you cannot say you do when applying for roles that want SC

Unfortuantely this. BIES can't find it, UKSV can't find it so it's pretty clear it doesn't exist. To be fair I didn't see how there was going to be any other outcome from what you told us already. Your client checked and couldn't find it. It's not something they'll just re-instate cause someone has messed up. Nothing else to do here I am afraid.