PeopleCheck uses technology in a smart way to support the process but we strongly believe that the human ability to cross-check and understand context is invaluable. We hope that these are helpful insights and potential issues to be aware of: 

Discrepancy in reason for leaving a former employer – potential issue #1

It is important not to take an explanation merely on face value. We have seen hundreds of cases were the candidate stated they left on mutual understanding, and after further referencing, we discovered they were dismissed with legal action pending. 

Major discrepancy in former job role – potential issue #2

This can lead to hiring someone into a position that they are not competent to perform. In a worst-case scenario, such a hire could potentially cause irreversible damage to the organisation’s brand and reputation. 

Undeclared county court judgments (CCJ’s) – potential issue #3

The candidate stated that they had no outstanding CCJ’s when in fact there was a £64,000 unsatisfied CCJ listed in recent months. It is always good to check to avoid the risks associated with potential financial stress, specially if the candidate is going to be directly working within the finance and accounting team. 

Partially declared negative information – potential issue #4

The candidate provided a very detailed explanation of previous negative issues in the application process. Upon investigation, further negative information became apparent, one of which being a conviction for fraud. This may have been a possible attempt to demonstrate full disclosure and hope that the more significant information was not found.

Non-pursuable information provided – potential issue #5

Within the application process, the candidate provided details of companies and former employers, stating that they had gone into administration and no longer exist. Upon further investigation, it was found that these companies were in fact trading and full verifications were pursued. In two cases, the candidate had been dismissed for gross misconduct. This may have possibly been an attempt to misinform the verifier with the intention of avoiding a negative reference being discovered. 

Aliases and former names not being disclosed during the application stage – potential issue #6

With proper cross-referencing of a consumer search, a former name was identified that the candidate did not include in their original application. The discovered former name was then included within the checking process and a criminal conviction was revealed.﻿

All above issues were identified and properly articulated to the prospective employer in a timely manner. – Identifying such issues early was made possible by well-trained professionals who understand the importance of a meaningful screening process.  

Identifying issues early and understanding the importance of a meaningful screening process

Background screening: Top six potential issues to be aware of

To deliver UK Digital RTW & Digital ID, PeopleCheck has partnered with Yoti and Post Office (UK’s first Certified Identity Service Provider – IDSP) to provide this service to all our clients.

This service will be seamlessly integrated into our online tracking platform.

The check conducted with a Certified Identity Service Provider acts on behalf of the employer; with the employer becoming a ‘relying party’ in that transaction.

Conducting a check through PeopleCheck provides the employer with the Statutory Excuse for UK RTW and means that the employer no longer needs to check original documents prior to the person starting work.

What Documents Meet Digital RTW Requirements?

For the purposes of verifying Digital Identity for UK RTW checks, only the following specified documents can be accepted:

The Employer’s Cross-Check Requirement

Employers must satisfy themselves that the photograph and biographic details (for example, date of birth) on the output from the IDSP identity check are consistent with the individual presenting themselves for work (i.e. the information provided by the check relates to the individual and they are not an imposter).

The employer must retain evidence of the online right to work check. 

This will be available within the PeopleCheck platform and is the ‘Profile Page’ confirming the individual’s UK RTW. 

This page will include the individual's photo and date on which the check was conducted. 

You should store this securely (electronically or in hardcopy) for the duration of employment plus for two years afterwards. The file must then be securely destroyed.

Home Office Share Code Service (for non-UK/Irish Citizens)

PeopleCheck can assist with Share Code validation.

The Share Code is requested directly from the candidate via our intuitive and user-friendly online forms. 

The employer’s cross-check and retention rules apply as they do for UK Digital RTW Checks.

What is the process where a candidate does not hold a Share Code (for non-UK/Irish Citizens)?

This may occur if the person has an ‘entry clearance’ within their passport. 

This normally allows the person to arrive in the country and to collect their Biometric Residence Permit (BRP) within a specific number of days. Once the BRP has been collected, they are able to apply for a Home Office Share Code; this can then be validated/checked for right to work.

Note: When the candidate logs into our forms without a Share Code or relevant RTW documents, then there is clear guidance on how to apply for this. 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/right-to-work-checks-employers-guide

Digital UK Right To Work Checks

We sometimes get asked, ‘should we have a background screening process?’. 

The key is in understanding that a single ‘bad hire’ can result in reputational damage and or significant commercial loss. An effective and meaningful background screening process will reduce the likelihood of this occurring.

We also make employers aware of the fact that those who deliberately or maliciously target companies for fraud, often know which companies conduct proper and consistent background screening programs. These people will actively ‘test’ the hiring and recruitment process and when they come up against an effective checking process they normally withdraw and re-target another company who either does not conduct checks or conducts ad hoc or informal referencing.

Many of our clients comment on the value of PeopleCheck – this is often seen as an effective defence against targeted fraudsters at the pre-hire stage. Having a professional and robust background checking program sends a very strong and positive message to the marketplace, that as an employer, you are a company that that takes brand protection seriously and also understands the need for proper compliance.

We also believe that a good screening process should not simply be a ‘pass or fail tick-box exercise’ – it should always provide qualified judgment based on proven facts that enables smart and timely decision making.

We have included some case studies below in relation to what can be found within an effective background checking process. These all relate to ‘real cases’ that have all occurred within the past. We hope that you enjoy the reading and find them interesting and helpful: 

A candidate applied for a senior IT architect role with a large IT firm. This company specializes in next-generation cybersecurity, protecting people, data, and brands from advanced threats and compliance risks. 

In the online application form, their CV and their LinkedIn profile the candidate indicated that they had worked for several years within number of ‘top secret’ departments within the US government. Enough detail about job title, location and project description was provided to appear credible but due to the secrecy of the positions, the candidate indicated that they could not provide documentary proof of contracts or names of line managers. 

We engaged with the candidate explaining that we are aware of sensitive roles and that there was a compliance requirement for the prospective role that we verify seven years of activity, with at least referees or some form of payment or contract proof. 

They reiterated that, previous employers had accepted the fact that they were an ex-government employee and also accepted that their vetting would have been to the highest level, based on the roles. We advised the client that it would be wise to establish some level of verification in relation to the government jobs and that in parallel a number of other checks should be conducted. 

During the sanction checking process, the team discovered someone who matched the candidate’s profile who had been arrested for hacking offences. As analysis were conducted, it was established that the candidate had been in prison in the US for the same time period of time for which they had claimed that they had been employed by the US government. 

Further checks revealed that the convictions were for hacking, fraud, and money laundering. Based on the terms of the time served in prison the candidate appears to have simply fabricated a CV that he hoped would never be challenged. 

When the candidate was confronted with this information, they immediately withdrew from the process and told the client that they were no longer interested in the role. 

A candidate applied for a training role in a large consultancy firm. Their background had been mostly in supply teaching. They were a very charming and likeable person, who wanted to move from the public sector into the commercial training environment. 

They told the client that they were holding a number of job offers and would accept the role if they could on-board them immediately. The client really liked the candidate and did not want to miss the opportunity of hiring them, so made an immediate offer and brought them onsite. 

Their role was to oversee that training on a large project that was handling personal private data for schools, universities, and social care projects.

An HR audit discovered that they had not been checked and as such requested that they go through the process. The candidate refused saying that they had already been successful offered the job and had been in the position for over a month. After a further two months, they reluctantly accepted to engage in the checking process.

In the online form, and CV, they had provided many periods of employment which were verified. The verification process identified a gap of five months and based on further inquiry, another period of employment at a school was confirmed. This school refused however to provide any details of employment. 

Criminal checks and a press analysis were conducted, and it was established that the candidate had been sacked from the school for misconduct and that he had been convicted for serious sexual offences involving children and animals. It was further revealed that he was on the sex offenders register and still serving a suspended sentence. 

Upon finding this information the client realised the significant negative exposure from a compliance & integrity perspective. The matter was dealt with internally.

We received a communication from a financial services client, who is an FCA regulated firm, that a very senior candidate was going to complete an application online. We were notified that they were applying for a senior compliance role and that they had previously worked at three of the major UK banks. 

We were also informed that they ‘can be difficult’ and does not appear to see the value of being checked; particularly as they have been employed at such well known employers, who run background checks. We confirmed that we would conduct the checks in a sensitive manner and make the process as smooth as possible for the candidate. 

The candidate provided six years of activity and this was checked and confirmed as correct. The only issue was that they appeared to be delaying in providing sufficient details to conduct a full criminal check. Instead, they provided a criminal certificate of unspent convictions and said that previous screening companies had always accepted this as a clear record.

We assured our client that a higher level of criminal check was required by the role and eventually the check was conducted. The result revealed that the candidate had served seven years in prison (albeit twelve years prior to applying for this specific position) for passport fraud and production of cloned credit cards. 

The candidate withdrew from the process stating that the company would not be the right fit for them. 

A candidate applied for a project management role within a specialist biopharma consultancy firm. They only had three years of work experience, following an MBA at a top UK university and a first-class technical aerospace degree; also, at a top tier UK university. 

They were immensely proud of their academic achievements which had been a significant factor in gaining previous employment as well as being offered a position with our client. The client has a very well-respected brand and tends to employ people based heavily on their academic achievements. 

During the verification process, the relevant universities were initially unable to find the candidate on their graduation systems; The candidate were then asked by PeopleCheck whether they had been known by any other names during the periods of education. 

The candidate said no and sent screenshots of their LinkedIn profile showing the logos of the universities and quite a lot of detail about the dates of study, the course titles and the classifications and awards achieved. They also provided 27 scanned pages of their attendance, course marks and proof of study; including a reference letter from their second-year tutor. 

They said that his former employers, and screening companies, had been impressed by these and it had never been a problem. We reverted back to them and said that these would be good, however they did not show graduation. We also asked if they had retained any award certificates. The candidate said again that this had never been a problem and they felt that they had nothing to prove. 

We again went back to the universities to double check. The first university established that the candidate had studied the bachelor’s degree but did not complete the course. It was further confirmed that there was neither record of attendance nor completion of the MBA program. 

We advised the candidate of this and they said that they would speak with the prospective employer. The client fed back to us that the checks could be curtailed because the candidate had decided to take another job offer. 

We closed the case and cross-checked the LinkedIn profile for the applicant. To our surprise, all traces of their education had been removed from the profile. 

A large engineering company, with a hugely respected brand, requested that we conduct checks in relation to a new project finance manager. Their role was to manage procurement processes and oversee payment of key vendors. 

Within the check it was established that the candidate had £64,000 of active county court judgements (CCJs). These were not declared during the application process. When the candidate was asked for further context behind the CCJs, they were surprised that these had flagged up and immediately withdrew from the process. ﻿﻿﻿

The client expressed sincere thanks for alerting them to these issues. As the CCJ’s may have been considered to be a significant point of financial stress for an individual who had relatively unsupervised access to significant internal funds.

How a single ‘bad hire’ can result in reputational damage and or significant commercial loss

You never know until you check – case studies

Purple squirrel is a term used by employment recruiters to describe: a job candidate with precisely the right education, experience, and qualifications that perfectly fits a job's multifaceted requirements. 

The implication is that the perfect candidate is as rare as a real-life purple squirrel. 

The purple squirrel is the holy grail of the hiring process and employers often rush into bringing them on board. Quite often in this rush, a background check is overlooked, and this given hire can sometimes turn out to be a critical risk to the organisation’s brand and reputation.

Fake purple squirrels are experts at the art of deception and avoidance of process. The key fact is: You never really know unless you check, and no employer likes to hear the words ‘if only we had checked it, we would not have ended up this way!’

This given hire can sometimes turn out to be a critical risk to the organisation’s brand and reputation

Purple squirrel – the perfect job candidate

There are many types of candidate who enter the background screening process, and it is the role of the professional screening company, to recognise the specific needs of each applicant and to conduct their checks in a meaningful, sensitive and responsive manner. 

As an example of applicants, there are those who readily engage and provide all required information in a timely and thorough manner. This ensures a very swift and effective process. 

There are candidates who provide partial information and have forgotten previous details. These individuals often need to be coached and guided through the process.

There is also the shouter, they appear in the process every now and again and is clearly identified by their reluctance to provide information and in the way they express outrage at why they should be checked. Employers and recruiters may have previously ‘backed down’ in the face of the shouter, either wishing to avoid conflict or in feeling threatened. 

It should be noted that the shouter should not be confused with the person who genuinely needs reassurance about the handling of data and the specific need for the check as part of the pre-hiring process. 

Often the shouter had delayed the process for so long that the employer or agency simply gave up with the checks and hired them. When the checks are not conducted then the shouter has achieved their purpose in avoiding the process. – In effect, ‘laundering’ their CV and creating an assumption for a future employer that they must have been checked!

As a real case example: An applicant applying for the role of compliance manager in the UK made a series of complaints and sent a number of abusive messages about why someone of their seniority and experience should be subject to a background check. They also stated that they had worked for a number of high-profile companies in the city (which was true) and that another check would simply be pointless.

The prospective employer was about to give in to the shouter to avoid the ‘hassle’. PeopleCheck advised the client that continuity of process and mitigation of the hiring risk was crucial within their screening program and that we could speak to the candidate, explain the need for such checks and guide them through completion of the process.

Eventually after much shouting, they provided enough details to conduct a meaningful check. Five days later a criminal certificate was completed showing a conviction for passport fraud.

Based on their employment history, the assumption was that all of their former employers had not in fact conducted a background check as they must have been unwilling or afraid of confronting the shouter. – The candidate instantly withdrew from wanting the job. 

 Remember: you never know until you check and never be put off by a shouter!

As a real case example: An applicant applying for the role of compliance manager in the UK

Watch out for ‘the shouter!’

PeopleCheck received an urgent call from a large consulting firm that had been subject to a recent audit. The company provides on-site IT consultants within financially regulated companies across the globe. The main sites of operations are the US, UK, South East Asia, India and South America.

Sensing an urgent need; We quickly setup a meeting with the Head of Human Resources and the Head of Compliance and it immediately became apparent that the company had been subject to an unsuccessful audit.

Over the years background screening had been performed on an ad-hoc and decentralised basis; being managed by an already overloaded HR group. As a result, some consultants had not been checked and others had been checked but the scope of checks were non-compliant with the regulatory needs of the end-client.

The priority as to ensure that the audit observations were rectified as soon as possible and then a plan would be needed to formalise a robust and compliant screening program that could work across multiple geographies but still be easily managed and overseen centrally.

Within 24 hours the company was fully active on the PeopleCheck Platform and was able to successfully bulk initiate all those checks identified by the audit. This included a total of 2400 consultants.

The company were immediately able to demonstrate to the auditor that all non-checked checked consultants were now ‘In Progress' from a screening perspective and this further demonstrated that the company had taken immediate and meaningful remediation measures. Crucially, this enabled the contracts to remain active and compliant.

Over the following working days, PeopleCheck took over the entire end-to-end screening program and the company were able to track the successful completion of the required checks. All the compliance and data checks were in fact completed within a short period. This meant that no consultant's access to client IT systems would be revoked and no lost contract billing occurred.

The company was amazed at the speed, simplicity, and responsiveness that PeopleCheck was able to deliver in such a compliant way.﻿

The incident above occurred a few years ago and PeopleCheck still partners with this company. As a side note, the company has never failed an audit since working with PeopleCheck and currently conducts over 3000 full-scope checks a year, plus rechecking and Fit & Proper programs – all through the PeopleCheck Platform.

Formalising a robust and compliant screening program that works across multiple geographies

Large consulting firm – case study

In the past few months, we have been monitoring data relating to negative financial information and unspent criminal convictions. 

We have seen a noticeable difference in figures between candidates applying for full-time roles and those applying for contractor and temporary roles. – The data suggests that there has been an increase in negative data relating to those applying through the contractor and temporary route to employment. 

We always advise and encourage our clients to use a meaningful and consistent approach within their screening and hiring processes. Employers often however look to only formally check those being hired into permanent roles and rely on recruitment agencies to conduct contractor checks. This assumption that checks are being conducted can lead to a disjointed process which enables those who you may not wish to have within the organisation, gaining access. ﻿

We also have a suite of smart checks, with rapid turnaround times, which some of our clients are increasingly requesting from their recruitment partners in order to formalise the screening processes and set best practices in this area.

Monitoring data relating to negative financial information and unspent criminal convictions.

Conducting meaningful checks on contractors and temporary hires

The key to an effective background check is that it is completed swiftly, accurately and within a secure and seamless framework. PeopleCheck are consistently able to achieve this, enabling the client to secure the talent they need and demonstrate an effective and candidate-friendly process.

Currently, many candidates have grown up using smart devices, rather than desktop computers. We all now live and operate in an ‘on-demand’ rather than a ‘in-put based’ environment. 

With data capture in mind, we constantly challenge ourselves by asking; ‘How best to capture correct and meaningful information, first time, using smart and adaptive technology?’.

Studies shown that users spend up to nine hours per day using some type of digital media on smart devices. It is understood that the human brain develops based on how it is used. Messaging, swiping and web-surfing use different parts of the brain than speaking, writing, reading, or typing.

This has a causal effect in that the candidate may interpret and process information differently over time, resulting in the following:

Altered ability to remember certain events sequentially.

Altered ability to mentally multi-task or remember multiple events in a contemporaneous way.

It is these points that may have an impact on a candidate’s ability to complete a meaningful and sequential application form. In a recent example – an applicant was asked to complete an application form that required entering information for a continuous period of five year. This included details of employment, and any other activities, with an explanation of any gap greater than three months. – An incomplete submission was received.

In a follow-up with the candidate, we requested details of an employer/company name, an address if known and a name of a line manager if known. They were also asked to clarify the respective dates of employment and to explain what they were doing between a specific set of dates covering a four-month gap.

The candidate replied saying that they could not remember any of the specific details and that they could not remember what they were doing during the gap of four months.

Rather than asking for specific historical information – the interviewer took a different more subtle approach. The approach was to coach the candidate in memory recall to see if the information required did in fact subconsciously exist.

Following a brief telephone conversation, the candidate was able to recall, the full company name, the complete address, the dates required, the name of the receptionist at the company, the full name of immediate line manager as well as three names of former colleagues. Based on further ‘time-line coaching’, they were also able to provide the correct dates, and as such, no gap in fact existed!

A swift and successful check was then finalised. 

At PeopleCheck we are constantly tailoring our approach so that every candidate is given the best possible, most engaging, and meaningful candidate experience. It is a classic example of ‘one size does not fit all’ and that, as with many things in business and in life, flexibility and an intelligent approach will always achieve the best and most valuable results.

How best to capture correct and meaningful information, first time, using smart and adaptive technology

The background check application process & completing forms

We are sharing a topic that will probably be known and understood by most HR groups, recruiters, and employers – but we have seen another recent increase in confusion by prospective candidates about their UK right to work status.

We are finding applicants presenting indefinite leave to remain permits in expired passports.

Many are under the genuine and understandable impression that this gives them right to work, when presented with another current passport. – This may have been true up until rule changes in 2014.

A job candidate cannot use a valid visa in an expired passport to prove their right to work in the UK. The visa must be replaced with a biometric residence permit.

The following links may be helpful: https://www.gov.uk/transfer-visa 

A recent increase in confusion by prospective candidates about their UK right to work status

Articles and resources

Background screening: Top six potential issues to be aware of

Digital UK Right To Work Checks

You never know until you check – case studies

Purple squirrel – the perfect job candidate

Browse by category

For two decades, we have been setting the standard and leading the way our industry evolves

Solutions

Company

Your account