Unfortunately
them being wrongly accused now counts as "soft evidence" so they still fail.
Thousands wrongly labelled by CRB checks
The Criminal Records Bureau has paid out compensation of £290,124 to people wrongly labelled criminals during background checks by the agency. The CRB issued 3,855,881 certificates in 2008/2009. In the same year there were 2,522 disputes handled, and upheld. These claims were brought by the registered body or by the applicant …
-
Tuesday 13th April 2010 12:13 GMT Doctor_Wibble
Not an exclusive, surely?
On the one hand it's good to see the problem being picked up, but on the other, an FOI request really wasn't needed - a sizeable chunk of what they asked for had already been provided in answers to parliamentary written questions a few months ago!
e.g.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm100224/text/100224w0003.htm#10022477000021
Home Office, Vetting Compensation [24 February 2010] Column 562W
Table given shows compensation awarded for years from 2002 to 2010
and
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm100107/text/100107w0010.htm#10010759000033
Home Office, Vetting [7 January 2010] Column 529W
Table given shows disputes, reason for disputes and how many upheld, covering years from 2002 to 2010 - 32,937 checks disputed, of which 16,268 upheld (i.e. mistake admitted).
-
Tuesday 13th April 2010 14:31 GMT Anonymous Coward
False-positive hysteria,...
yes it is a low rate of errors, yes 0% would be better, but it appears there is an appeal / review processes that seems to work to correct those mistakes.
Just remember, this form of vetting only detects the ones that have been caught previously. Its the ones who are clever enough not to get caught yet that are the worry. We can't detect them by thought-waves yet, so basic situational awareness and pragmatism need to apply.
-
Tuesday 13th April 2010 15:50 GMT Sir Sham Cad
appeals
Which is fine and dandy if that appeals process also prevents the eCRB/ISA from flagging the false positive from the "failed" check.
If it doesn't then a single administrative error gives you a permanent, genuine, failure, which cannot be overturned and will stay with you for life.
Essentially, if Joe Bloggs from 1a Badlaw Lane is accidentally matched to Joseph B. Bloggs from 1a Badlaw Road who happens to have a criminal record for something, and the CRB for a completely different individual (Joseph B. Bloggs) fails but is attributed to Joe, then an eCRB/ISA fail flag goes onto Joe Bloggs' actual, genuine record and he will fail forevermore, even if the original CRB mistake is found and he subsequently passes the CRB. He will still fail ISA due to nothing he has had any involvement in and nor will he have recourse.
You'd think that there would be an appeal/review process that would work throughout the system and that such logical absurdity would have been picked up by someone either in govt or the law lords. Me, I'm no longer surprised by the levels of ignorance and incompetence any of our politicians will sink to in order to appease the tabloids.
-
Tuesday 13th April 2010 16:22 GMT A J Stiles
Appeal / review process
"yes 0% would be better, but it appears there is an appeal / review processes that seems to work to correct those mistakes."
Oh, good. Well, I'm sure that will come as a tremendous relief to the person who had petrol through his letter box because, after failing a job interview on the basis of a false positive, word got out that he was a paedophile.
-
-
Tuesday 13th April 2010 23:54 GMT bennett_1357
I'm amazed
at the number of people who think you can "fail" a CRB check. All the check states is a list of convictions, they don't give you a pass or fail as such. I needed a eCRB for the post I have at a University. I have two minor convictions and the University in question didn't view these as a problem. It's up to the employer to decide whether or not you "fail" the check.
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
