We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide

Interveiws and Data Protection

2»

Comments

  • Premier_2
    Premier_2 Posts: 15,141 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    As you say, the legal requirement is to see proof of the right to work in the UK. But once they take and keep a copy, they are going beyond what the law requires and the copy is 'data'.
    SarEl wrote: »
    Actually no they are not. Yes, the copy is data in the same way that anything else is. But the employer is not required to see a passport - they are required to copy the originals of the required evidence as proscribed by law and be able to produce it when and if required. They are not therefore going beyond the law, they are complying with it. The law used to be see - it changed about two years or so ago, might be three. Now it is "hold a copy of". It wa changed because employers were claiming they had seen documents when they had not.


    My understanding is that neither of these comments is entirely correct.

    As I understand it, (but I might be wrong) an employer can face a civil penalty of up to £10k per illegal worker they employ.

    However, the appropriate legislation also allows the employer to establish 'an excuse' against such penalty if the employer can produce a copy of the document checked.
    http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/employersandsponsors/preventingillegalworking/currentguidanceandcodes/summaryguidance0208.pdf?view=Binary (page 6)

    Therefore it would be extremely unwise to employ someone without taking and reatining a copy of such documentation.

    Because of possible discrimination litigation otherwise, the employer needs to do this for all employees.
    "Now to trolling as a concept. .... Personally, I've always found it a little sad that people choose to spend such a large proportion of their lives in this way but they do, and we have to deal with it." - MSE Forum Manager 6th July 2010
  • Swifteaves
    Swifteaves Posts: 24 Forumite
    SarEl wrote: »
    Actually no they are not. Yes, the copy is data in the same way that anything else is. But the employer is not required to see a passport - they are required to copy the originals of the required evidence as proscribed by law and be able to produce it when and if required. They are not therefore going beyond the law, they are complying with it. The law used to be see - it changed about two years or so ago, might be three. Now it is "hold a copy of". It wa changed because employers were claiming they had seen documents when they had not.

    This is why I originally questioned the need to keep a copy of my passport. They are not my employer. I was rejected at first stage interview.

    Reading the various responses on here, it seems like the law on this is open to interpretation.
  • T800
    T800 Posts: 1,481 Forumite
    Swifteaves wrote: »
    This is why I originally questioned the need to keep a copy of my passport. They are not my employer. I was rejected at first stage interview.

    Reading the various responses on here, it seems like the law on this is open to interpretation.

    Did you give them a copy of your passport or did they make the copy themselves?
  • Premier_2
    Premier_2 Posts: 15,141 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    Why are you so concerned at them retaining a copy of the information you willingly allowed them to have in the first place???
    "Now to trolling as a concept. .... Personally, I've always found it a little sad that people choose to spend such a large proportion of their lives in this way but they do, and we have to deal with it." - MSE Forum Manager 6th July 2010
  • Premier_2
    Premier_2 Posts: 15,141 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    T800 wrote: »
    Did you give them a copy of your passport or did they make the copy themselves?
    Hopefully they made the copy themselves. They are required to see the original documents before employing someone.
    "Now to trolling as a concept. .... Personally, I've always found it a little sad that people choose to spend such a large proportion of their lives in this way but they do, and we have to deal with it." - MSE Forum Manager 6th July 2010
  • Swifteaves
    Swifteaves Posts: 24 Forumite
    T800 wrote: »
    Did you give them a copy of your passport or did they make the copy themselves?

    They took a copy themselves. This was one of the interview requirements.

    I must add that it's not really a big deal. I just wanted to understand why it was being done at such an early stage in the process, and whether it was standard practice.

    I have an enquiring mind.
  • T800
    T800 Posts: 1,481 Forumite
    Swifteaves wrote: »
    They took a copy themselves. This was one of the interview requirements.

    I must add that it's not really a big deal. I just wanted to understand why it was being done at such an early stage in the process, and whether it was standard practice.

    I have an enquiring mind.

    It is unlikely to be anything sinister, we take copies where I work, as do the majority of firms who want to cover their backs.

    I would be unhappy if they didnt destroy these copies if they didnt give me the job however. I would ask them first if they will be destroying it.

    where I work I shred all the recruitment files including these passport /other proof of elegibility to work copies.

    Only thing that is kept is equal opportunities data which is anonymous.
  • Premier_2
    Premier_2 Posts: 15,141 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    T800 wrote: »
    ive never came across that as a legal exemption. A source would be helpful.

    I could, in fact I did, but it looks like someone reported the post and now it's been removed ... all within 30 minutes of posting.

    Oh well...

    Seems like we can't discuss discrimination cases because ...well ...some people obviously consider it to be offensive.

    Bearing in mind the speed with which the post was reported and removed, well...
    "Now to trolling as a concept. .... Personally, I've always found it a little sad that people choose to spend such a large proportion of their lives in this way but they do, and we have to deal with it." - MSE Forum Manager 6th July 2010
  • Swifteaves
    Swifteaves Posts: 24 Forumite
    T800 wrote: »
    It is unlikely to be anything sinister, we take copies where I work, as do the majority of firms who want to cover their backs.

    I would be unhappy if they didnt destroy these copies if they didnt give me the job however. I would ask them first if they will be destroying it.

    Agreed. I do think that the company in question is ensuring that it has all bases covered.

    I've just spoken to one of their HR reps. She confirmed that documentation of this nature (copies of passport, visas etc.) is destroyed if the applicant is unsuccessful. That makes perfect sense to me.
  • SarEl
    SarEl Posts: 5,683 Forumite
    Premier wrote: »
    My understanding is that neither of these comments is entirely correct.

    As I understand it, (but I might be wrong) an employer can face a civil penalty of up to £10k per illegal worker they employ.

    However, the appropriate legislation also allows the employer to establish 'an excuse' against such penalty if the employer can produce a copy of the document checked.
    http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/employersandsponsors/preventingillegalworking/currentguidanceandcodes/summaryguidance0208.pdf?view=Binary (page 6)

    Therefore it would be extremely unwise to employ someone without taking and reatining a copy of such documentation.

    Because of possible discrimination litigation otherwise, the employer needs to do this for all employees.

    Technically you are correct - if the employer has evidence that they have inspected documentation (originals) then this gives them a legal excuse if the employee then turns out to be working illegally. But the rules actually go further than "advisory" - employers are required to copy and retain the copies of relevant documents during the employees employment and for two years after they leave.

    There is no such requirement for people who are not subsequently required, but as I said, if they are being cautious, they may retain them for a period. Many public sector agencies, for example, as you have suggested, keep all documentation pertaining to interviews for a minimum of six months (three months in case they get taken to a tribunal and three months in case the deadline gets extended!), in order to ensure they have anything and everything they need to resist a legal challenge
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 354.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 455.3K Spending & Discounts
  • 247.2K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 603.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 178.4K Life & Family
  • 261.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.7K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.