Reply to: Onboarding/compliance nightmares

[TheDude]

My compliance check with Santander took about 5 weeks a few years ago. Was a real faff. Originally told it would take 3 weeks and my start date was pushed back several times whilst there seemed to be continual delays with the vetting team. Needed a lot of chasing up of the Alexander Mann team in Poland. Not a great experience.

Guess which company are doing my compliance...

[edison]

Someone I know recently started a contract working in data analytics at Santander near London, after a 6 week compliance process. He was told at the interview that at least 4 weeks was the minimum. To be fair, he will be working with MC data, so perhaps that requires extra compliance checks.

My compliance check with Santander took about 5 weeks a few years ago. Was a real faff. Originally told it would take 3 weeks and my start date was pushed back several times whilst there seemed to be continual delays with the vetting team. Needed a lot of chasing up of the Alexander Mann team in Poland. Not a great experience.

[lecyclist]

Someone I know recently started a contract working in data analytics at Santander near London, after a 6 week compliance process. He was told at the interview that at least 4 weeks was the minimum. To be fair, he will be working with MC data, so perhaps that requires extra compliance checks.

[edison]

I once had to give 10 years of references for a role at a FTSE100 company (non-banking) and provide a copy of every qualification on my CV including my degree from a mere 28 years earlier!

The compliance checks were done by a specialist employment screening company who had almost zero comprehension of contracting. I had 2-3 weeks delay as we went back and forth on various details like gaps between perm and contract roles and trying to explain why I couldn't give a reference for several small pieces of work because they were done for a consultancy owned by a relative.

[TheDude]

Start date has slipped by a week and still no contract.

The tone of the conversation with the agent has changed and I suspect for whatever reason this is now a no go.

Shoddy behaviour but I have learned a hard lesson.

[gables]

The bank I'm at was fast, well faster than being described here at a little over a week, maybe 2.

[SussexSeagull]

You would do that if you are 100% sure you don't need the OP

What would you do if you are only 50% sure that you don't need the OP - you would keep things ticking along slower....

The problem is this is a bank so it's hard to know when slow is intentionally slow or just them being their usual slow

Never worked in finance so will take your word for it.

[eek]

I would have thought if the OP wasn't needed anymore they would either just tell them or ghost them.

You would do that if you are 100% sure you don't need the OP

What would you do if you are only 50% sure that you don't need the OP - you would keep things ticking along slower....

The problem is this is a bank so it's hard to know when slow is intentionally slow or just them being their usual slow

[northernladuk]

I do have the option of staying put with a 10% rate rise however the new gig is a 40% rate rise so it would be a shame to miss out however something is definitely fishy. The hiring manager has been cc'd regarding first day and onboarding but so far...silence.

Sadly in my experience any long delays with radio silence never ends well. I do know people that have been through this and it landed as well as a post or two on here so it can still happen but if I were a gambling man and be happy to bet it wona and I'm sure I'd be making a nice profit overall.

Fingers crossed

[SussexSeagull]

I would have thought if the OP wasn't needed anymore they would either just tell them or ghost them.

[TheDude]

If there was a suitable preferred replacement they would just bin the OP off.

So it becomes a question of are they being deliberately slow (and if so why) or is this normal?

I do have the option of staying put with a 10% rate rise however the new gig is a 40% rate rise so it would be a shame to miss out however something is definitely fishy. The hiring manager has been cc'd regarding first day and onboarding but so far...silence.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Yes I have been through a slow and highly defective process of this type multiple times for permie and contract roles.

I have been asked piles of stupid and irrelevant questions, sometimes more than once and always urgent. The questions often have zero relevance to the UK and often don't actually make any sense. It's all part of the comedy of pretending to check things whilst not doing that but engaging people in busy work. I just smile and send an answer to whatever today's daft question is.

[Lance]

Nor did the NHS when they took on that bloke on with the fake PHD that was in the news recently. It happens. Also, if you opted in the agency/client have an obligation to check you have the qualifications for the role. The fact that agencies never ask for them is just the agency being lazy. The regulation states that evidence must be provided.

We should be thankful we haven't been asked for them because its possible we should in certain circumstances.

Perhaps putting (expired) after every professional qualification on my CV has voided ever being asked.

[TheDude]

If there was a suitable preferred replacement they would just bin the OP off.

So it becomes a question of are they being deliberately slow (and if so why) or is this normal?

I think they are just incompetent.

There were questions on the compliance forms that were only to be answered by FCA approved persons - I was asked on three occasions why I hadn't filled that section in.

[eek]

I also think they're looking for an excuse. Maybe the OP wasn't the first choice for the role but now the original first choice has become available?

If there was a suitable preferred replacement they would just bin the OP off.

So it becomes a question of are they being deliberately slow (and if so why) or is this normal?