Please help - Being accused of fraud

brendon

ValHaller wrote: »

So it would be quite wrong to put OP on this database!

I don't understand why the OP would not be put on the database. A criminal offence has been committed, as far as I can see. It does say that the bank only has to be willing, but it is not necessary for the bank to actually report to the police -- only they must have evidence on par with that required for a conviction.

From this document: https://www.cifas.org.uk/secure/contentPORT/uploads/documents/External-Staff_Fraudscape_CIFAS_webversion.pdf

[...] An interesting
development was the sharp increase in the total number
of Employment Application Frauds in 2012 compared
with 2011. These frauds are defined as those where an
individual had applied for a position but (in doing so) had,
for example, included material falsehoods such as failing
to disclose adverse credit information in his/her application
(where the position requires a clean financial history).
Whether or not the fraud was successful depended upon
whether it was uncovered before or after the individual
commenced employment.

It seems to me that this is exactly the type of fraud that will be documented in the database.

Buzby

Incidentally, were you advised that you were being asked to give permission for you to be credit searched?

If you did not, then the search is illegal and breached the DPA. If they are playing heavy, then so can you with a complaint to the Data Commissioner about their tactics.

brendon

Buzby wrote: »

Incidentally, were you advised that you were being asked to give permission for you to be credit searched?

If you did not, then the search is illegal and breached the DPA. If they are playing heavy, then so can you with a complaint to the Data Commissioner about their tactics.

Unfortunately, this may be incorrect, too. Advice from ICO seems to specifically allows use of 'validation' and 'vetting' procedures to ensure the information is incorrect. (The employee is not credit searched as such, just their claims are validated). Also from CIFRAS:

The CIFAS lawyers have advised that it is not a requirement of data protection law to obtain explicit consent from a member of staff to be filed on the Staff Fraud Database.

ValHaller

brendon wrote: »

.... It seems to me that this is exactly the type of fraud that will be documented in the database.

I would say that to convict OP of fraud, you would have to show (among other things) that he deliberately clicked the wrong answer rather than making a simple mistake. Which is why I suggested earlier that the prospective employer would need to ask OP the same question again at interview in order to have a factual basis for recording anything on the database. At the moment this criterion is not fulfilled:

The Staff Fraud Database Member must have sufficient clear evidence of wrongdoing to have reasonable grounds to press criminal charges if a suspect was traced.

GDVS

MoneySaverLog wrote: »

The "Have you ever" part would stop this application dead forever, not just the 6 years that the defaults are on your file.

This is discrimination. Hope it goes well for you.

Having had historical (or within limits, current) credit issues or even a minor criminal record is not necessarily a bar to a career with a financial institution, failure to declare most definitely is.

[Deleted User]

Wadsworth wrote: »

It is like a whirlwind that you can't get out of... Need a job to repair bad credit, won't give you a job because of bad credit...

I'll let you know what next week brings.

I, for one would definately be interested if you get any updates
Thank you x

Pity there isn't a word for those employers and their representatives who also fail to or aren't clear on informing prospective candidates about required conditions of employment (well until it is to late) with regards the whole credit status subject :mad: so right behind you on this

Whilst honesty is the best policy - it is easy for people to say it will be alright if your honest blah blah... but it can also leave you as easy 'target' I fear, especially in this subject

Thrugelmir

MoneySaverLog wrote: »

This is discrimination. Hope it goes well for you.

When a question is worded as clearly as it is. Then there is really no reason for a mistake. The question that then arises is has the applicant been truthful in all other responses on the application.

tinkerbell28

Saying NO to a question which is quite clearly worded, is, well fraud, really. It's pretty obvious why you'd be vetted for joining a financial institution. They are going to want to know if you pose a risk, either via fraud, blackmail, financial irresponsibility or theft.

It's a very precise question to answer incorrectly.

The fact is, if you enter a job which needs vetting. Either via finances, security or both.

Most will always ask the EVER question. This doesn't bar you. If you are honest. That's the key. If you're ever in a vetting situation, be honest, they shall check anyway. So if you lie and get found out, that also brings into question your character. Be honest, explain in the notes and it won't automatically bar you. If you've been honest and can prove it has been sorted.

The thing is they have heard it all before. Lots of people try and hide their past, hoping they don't check, or check xyz or thinking it won't matter. A vetting application is treated differently to say a loan application. They are within their rights to record it, especially since op answered no, to such a precise question. It's not a consumer issue here. He answered no to a very precise question on a declaration. Falsely.

The first thing they'd look at if op fessed up. Would be the defaults, how much he owed, how it was being sorted, if he posed a financial risk right now. Which isn't discrimination if he did. They could legally decline his application, or employ with more supervision of his finances. It's a job which comes with vetting. If it was deemed he wasn't a risk right now, so a few years clear history, settled accounts etc. He wouldn't necessarily of been barred, for lying definitely. As if you can lie on a vetting declaration, they won't trust you. It's that basic.

Obviously some jobs and black marks are a huge no-no. But for something like this, the lie has done the damage. Mistake or not. It's a call centre so it would be a basic check. NEVER lie.

ValHaller

tinkerbell28 wrote: »

Saying NO to a question which is quite clearly worded, is, well fraud, really.

I have mistakenly answered questions wrongly and been quite mortified.

I defy you never to have done the same at some.point in your life

It is one matter for an organisation to decide that it will never employ OP and keep records to that effect. It is quite anther to put their judgement on a database accessible outside the organisation without going a bit further with the applicant and eliminating the possibility of a simple mistake or an oversight.

tinkerbell28

Oh yes we've all made mistakes.

Doesn't change the fact that at the end of it. This isn't some job application or loan he's made a mistake on, or told a porkie pie on.

He was being vetted to asses his suitability to hold a role. He falsely answered. Mistake or not. That is what happens when you're vetted and the information can be shared.

When someone is vetted, the questions are very clear, it is also made very clear they will be vetted and the gravity of lying.

So a bit of self responsibility needs to come in here, he should've been more thorough. As from their point of view, he lied on the vetting application. Which they will record.