Rank: Forum user
|
We carry out CRB checks on our workforce (even though we shouldn't as we should not ask somebody to disclose their criminal history under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974).
The contractor we are doing work for has asked us to scan and send them over copies of our employees CRB checks.....surely if checks are carried out it should only be us as the employer that sees these checks?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The data protection act will cover this I expect and will need HR input.
Is there nothing that can be done to allow information to confirm a CRB was undertaken and was cleared?
I expect there's a good reason why they require this, e.g. Is the work in a sensitive site, working with vunerable people environment etc?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
MB1 wrote:The data protection act will cover this I expect and will need HR input.
Is there nothing that can be done to allow information to confirm a CRB was undertaken and was cleared?
I expect there's a good reason why they require this, e.g. Is the work in a sensitive site, working with vunerable people environment etc?
We are electrical contractors working in tenanted housing......but we should still not be carrying out CRB checks (this has been confirmed by the bureau themselves, see part of their response below....I explained to CRB that we could be potentially rewiring schools, nursing homes and the like).
"I would like to open by clarifying that the CRB certainly do not advise that organisations perform blanket checks on their staff.
From the information you have provided there is no eligibility for your electricians to submit an application form for any level of check as they are not in sole charge of and/or responsible for the individuals whose houses they are re-wiring.
As such, we advise that requests, such as has been made of your company, should be not be included in contractual agreements."
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I tend to agree that CRB checks are too frequently required like this.
Obviously you need to discuss this with your contractor armed with the information as in the end of the day they are asking for this and may tell you it's a requirement by the client?
It's 1 thing to challenge the extra work & expense but another to challenge the reasons why as it may be a condition of the contract!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
MB1 wrote:I tend to agree that CRB checks are too frequently required like this.
Obviously you need to discuss this with your contractor armed with the information as in the end of the day they are asking for this and may tell you it's a requirement by the client?
It's 1 thing to challenge the extra work & expense but another to challenge the reasons why as it may be a condition of the contract!
Ive tried explaining to the contractor (a very large uk construction company), with my documented back-up from the CRB, that we are not legally allowed to ask for checks, indeed the CRB Officer said there are quite serious consequences for misapplication of CRB checks, for which he advised me not to go forward with the procedure.
I therefore have nothing to do with our company obtaining CRB checks. My M.D. knows the score on CRB but he is in a situation where if they are not done, the box on the contractors paperwork would not be ticked....hence potential loss of contract!!!
The whole CRB thing with major construction companies seem to be follow the leader....as soon as one company comes up with something the rest seem to follow!!!!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Z
Whilst technically you may be correct many many many parties irrespective of CDM companies are insisting on CRB irrespective of the rights and wrongs of things; so to get business we have to jump some humps and that's the end of it
I am against blanket things for blanket sake but the client rules and thats that irrespective of the guidance and opinions from the CRB service noting that they will not pay you if you lose work because of their guidance!
NB: CRB covers far more than vulnerable persons and thats something that we need to remember
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
bob youel wrote:Z
Whilst technically you may be correct many many many parties irrespective of CDM companies are insisting on CRB irrespective of the rights and wrongs of things; so to get business we have to jump some humps and that's the end of it
I am against blanket things for blanket sake but the client rules and thats that irrespective of the guidance and opinions from the CRB service noting that they will not pay you if you lose work because of their guidance!
NB: CRB covers far more than vulnerable persons and thats something that we need to remember
Bob your right!
As I said, I dont have anything to do with CRB procedure at my place after the warning and quite clear instruction that I would be breaking the law by asking for checks.
As are the contractor breaking the law for asking for the checks!
As you said its all about the money!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Would your employees be doing work where they have contact with vulnerable adults, or children ?
No ?
Then there is no need for an enhanced crb check...............
Probably no need for a standard check either.
Schools are another thing....do they have unsupervised access to either group ?
Probably no, but schools and councils pay little attention to law if it gets in their way !
You should remember that the employees approval has to be obtained before any check can be done anyway, and signed to....
As for sending the information to another person/company....just give them the unique identifier (number) on the crb certificate and let them check.
Most employers use the crb check to circumvent the rehabilitation of offenders act....probably illegal....but there is nobody to prosecute them anyway....
Good luck with this...if anything goes pear-shaped you are responsible.....but nobody has been prosecuted yet.....unless the info-commissar gets involved.
The home office (no capitals) have made a pigs bum of the legislation, which is constantly being altered as they trip over their own heads.
Oh, and if as part of an enhanced check you receive additional information by post from the police service, it is an offence to disclose that information to the "applicant", which neatly gets around the problem of telling others about rumours concerning people.....and it must also be illegal to pass enhanced disclosure information to any third party by definition.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The theme behind this topic suggests that a lot of contractors and their clients know little about CRB checks, including their limitations, but seem to think that insisting on them being made for as many people as possible will somehow avoid problems. The limitations of the CRB system apparently include the fact that it only identifies people who have been convicted (or cautioned?) of specific types of offences. Also, some of these people subsequently use different names, move to different areas and give incorrect details in order to avoid being identified by the system. In addition, the CRB process can take considerable time.
It's worth a look at http://www.direct.gov.uk...tartinganewjob/DG_195809 which includes
a summary of the types of jobs for which CRB clearance is needed, especially the following: working regularly with children or vulnerable people, in an establishment that is wholly or mainly for children, or in healthcare. Note the words 'regularly' and 'with'. Thus, for example, though my work for a local authority involves various visits to its schools, my employer's view is that CRB checking is not required for me because I don't work with children or in a school. Also, when I visit a school I am invariably with one or more members of its staff. By contrast CRB checks would be needed for a visiting music teacher, especially if they provide unsupervised one-to-one tuition for pupils. The same goes for caretakers or cleaners who regularly work in schools and, understandably, are regarded by pupils as trustworthy members of staff - as was the case with the two Soham schoolgirls murdered by their school's caretaker in 2002.
Also there is some analogy between CRB checks for people and PAT tests for electrical appliances. Even though an appliance may have passed a PAT test, its users should remain vigilant for subsequent signs of damage or defects. Similar analagous advice applies regarding people who have received CRB clearance, as has been demonstrated in recent years by highly publicised cases of female nursery workers who have abused young children at their workplaces. Thus, supervisors and colleagues should be alert for suspicious behaviour by others and then able to take appropriate action.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
"The theme behind this topic suggests that a lot of contractors and their clients know little about CRB checks, including their limitations, but seem to think that insisting on them being made for as many people as possible will somehow avoid problems"
Quite.
However, the crb check is useful to discover whether an employee has a criminal record.
Many employers will consider a small risk of discovery as worthwhile to know if an employee/prospective-employee has anything hidden. Irrespective of any contact with children or vulnerable adults.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Didn't Cameron mention unnecessary CRB checks in one of his speeches which included the health and safety gone mad mantra?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The BBC webpages at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3313099.stm and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3313303.stm are quite old (both 17th Dec 2003) but may be of interest to some forum users. The second one reports that Ian Huntley probably would not have been identified as unsuitable for working as school caretaker at Soham by the CRB system at the time. Though he was known to police and social services in his previous home area regarding various offences involving young girls and women, none of them had led to any convictions. The only record of him on the Police National Computer (PNC) was the fact that he had once been charged with burglary but the case had been dropped. Even this record ought to have rung alarm bells, but didn't because Huntley had given a new surname - this was the only one used for the search and not his original surname.
Though the CRB system was tightened up in the light of the Soham murders, a child protection co-ordinator quoted on the first website stated that "..CRB is only as effective as the information it can access." and "If the information is not held anywhere, people who are clever and devious can still slip through the net." Despite whatever changes are made, any system will always remain subject to limitations. Therefore, as mentioned in my earlier response, people need to be aware of the limitations and have informal arrangements, notably alertness for unusual/suspicious behaviour, in order to try and compensate for the CRB limitations.
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.