Company insisting on CRB and Credit Check

Harrietxxx

I have worked in my current role for 10 years. During that time I have tuped to a different Company than I was first employed. When I was first employed I was security vetted and have since provided my passport when new employment laws required it. I work in a pensions department, administering a large pension scheme.

My Company have demanded that we all now consent to regular CRB and credit checks. We have to submit our details to the company they have employed to carry out the checks and the information may be shared with my line managers. The company have said this is not a legal requirement, but best FCA practice. Any refusal could result in disciplinary action.

I am not happy to submit my details for these checks, and personally feel it is a gross intrusion into my privacy, There is nothing to hide!, I just don't think they should suddenly be allowed to introduce new policies like this with no consultation.

Anyway, I was just wondering where I stand if I refuse my consent. Can they insist? Is this a change to my contract? They say it is not a change to the contract, just the policies and procedures, but this seems to me to give them the right to do whatever they like!

Any advice appreciated

Thanks

Harrietxxx

Sorry wrong forum, have reposted but not sure how to delete this one

Bollotom

If handling large amounts of cash it would seem a necessity. If you refuse they may think there's something in your past. The credit check will show them you have no financial problems. Everyone is getting suspicious these days. I was a train driver and had to have a CRB check.

GingerBob_3

Bollotom wrote: »

If handling large amounts of cash it would seem a necessity. If you refuse they may think there's something in your past. The credit check will show them you have no financial problems. Everyone is getting suspicious these days. I was a train driver and had to have a CRB check.

:rotfl:Why? !!!!!!! What possible rationale could there be for such an egregious imposition?

Undervalued

GingerBob wrote: »

:rotfl:Why? !!!!!!! What possible rationale could there be for such an egregious imposition?

Based on the other thread you seem to have a real issue with CRB checks.

If a small cross country train were to break down in the middle of nowhere the driver would be alone with any passengers. It is perfectly possible that some or all of them may be children or vulnerable adults.

A friend's wife needed one for taxi driving as it was perfectly possible that passengers could be children.

marlot

Undervalued wrote: »

Based on the other thread you seem to have a real issue with CRB checks.

If a small cross country train were to break down in the middle of nowhere the driver would be alone with any passengers. It is perfectly possible that some or all of them may be children or vulnerable adults.

A friend's wife needed one for taxi driving as it was perfectly possible that passengers could be children.

The taxi I can understand if the firm bids for school runs, or for transporting vulnerable adults.

Not convinced by the need for CRB for a train driver. very unlikely to be alone with vulnerable people.

GingerBob_3

Undervalued wrote: »

Based on the other thread you seem to have a real issue with CRB checks.

If a small cross country train were to break down in the middle of nowhere the driver would be alone with any passengers. It is perfectly possible that some or all of them may be children or vulnerable adults.

A friend's wife needed one for taxi driving as it was perfectly possible that passengers could be children.

Yes, I do have a real issue with CRB checks, or whatever they now are (not that I've ever had one). In many cases their application is a symptom of national paranoia whipped up by the State and the Media. I recall a recent case where the flower arrangers in a church had to have one: utter madness and State-sponsored paranoia.