Company insisting on CRB and Credit checks

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

tomtontom

If there is nothing to hide then what is your objection - what's wrong with them knowing you have a clean credit file and no convictions?

Surely given your role you must understand the need for these checks - due diligence should not just apply prior to employment.

DandelionPatrol

tomtontom wrote: »

If there is nothing to hide then what is your objection - what's wrong with them knowing you have a clean credit file and no convictions?

Surely given your role you must understand the need for these checks - due diligence should not just apply prior to employment.

I think that the real question is what is right with them knowing - not what is wrong.

Such measures should be justified, necessary and proportionate.

Arguably in this case, it is not so necessary because OP has worked there for 10 years and not been found doing wrong. Nor is it proportionate because the employer should have internal checks and balances in place to minimize the scope for and to identify fraud. The fact that they are going down this route suggests that they are covering their precious little backsides rather than being competent.

stevemLS

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

I think that the real question is what is right with them knowing - not what is wrong.

Such measures should be justified, necessary and proportionate.

Arguably in this case, it is not so necessary because OP has worked there for 10 years and not been found doing wrong. Nor is it proportionate because the employer should have internal checks and balances in place to minimize the scope for and to identify fraud. The fact that they are going down this route suggests that they are covering their precious little backsides rather than being competent.

Equally arguably it is both necessary and proportionate and forms one of the checks and balances a responsible financial services provider would be expected to employ.

Dependant on the precise nature of the new employer it may also be a regulatory requirement.

Transformers

Vetting / credit check details / results are not normally shared with the line manager but held only within the security / HR environment.

Personal data should only be used as is 'necessary' - it isn't always necessary for the line manager to know these details.

The employer may well have good reason to have ongoing character checks BUT the LM does not necessarily need to be involved.

stevemLS

Transformers wrote: »

Vetting / credit check details / results are not normally shared with the line manager but held only within the security / HR environment.

Personal data should only be used as is 'necessary' - it isn't always necessary for the line manager to know these details.

The employer may well have good reason to have ongoing character checks BUT the LM does not necessarily need to be involved.

My guess, and it is only a guess, is that information would only be shared with line manager if something came up with one of the checks, dependant on company policy it may be up to them to decide whether any action was necessary. That may be why it says that information may be shared with line manager?

pioneer22

You only need to have a DBS check if you are involved in regulated activity.

What are you doing? Are you giving financial advice? It would be illegal for a company to request a DBS and it doesnt need to.

Harrietxxx

The tupe was several years ago so was not a requirement when I joined. I don't give advice, not allowed, just carry out administration.

It's more a principal thing, how can they just introduce a new policy and we all have to comply

I agree most people would just say oh well I have nothing to hide, what's wrong with it, and indeed that is how many of my colleagues fell, I just think it's rude and intrusive and wondered where I stand legally.

In future we will also have to tell them straight away if we get so much as a speeding ticket!!!

The main reason they are doing it is to show prospective new clients that they have carried out these checks, we have been told it is not legislative, just best practice

polgara

A CRB/DBS is only as good as the day that it is done. Many employers are now bringing in policies that require employees to disclose criminal convictions.

A TUPE protects your terms and conditions and contractual policies (i.e sick pay etc) - it doesn't mean that a receiving organisation can't bring in new policies as it deems fit. Does it recognise a union? If so, have they been involved/informed/consulted on the new policy?

Undervalued

polgara wrote: »

A CRB/DBS is only as good as the day that it is done. Many employers are now bringing in policies that require employees to disclose criminal convictions.

Indeed. Disclosing convictions (and even prosecutions pending) is probably a requirement for the firm's insurance policies, just as it is for most home insurance.

tomtontom

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

I think that the real question is what is right with them knowing - not what is wrong.

Such measures should be justified, necessary and proportionate.

Arguably in this case, it is not so necessary because OP has worked there for 10 years and not been found doing wrong. Nor is it proportionate because the employer should have internal checks and balances in place to minimize the scope for and to identify fraud. The fact that they are going down this route suggests that they are covering their precious little backsides rather than being competent.

And how do they know she has not committed a crime in the past ten years, or is up to her eyes in debt? Better to proactively check these things than investigate after something has gone wrong.