Resume fraud and the importance of pre-employment screening


Over a third of UK job applicants have lied on their CV at some point according to a survey from Job Today, a leading recruitment app.

A quarter admit to lying on their CV on a regular basis, and falsehoods can range from simple embellishments through to huge fabrications which could put businesses in danger.

Resume fraud might entail lying about qualifications (embellishing grades attained or even creating qualifications from schools never attended), exaggerating responsibilities in previous employment, creating positions to fill employment gaps and lying about a legal right to work in the UK.

CV fraud is illegal when it is intentional and is designed to make a gain or secure employment. But many people are unaware of this fact, contributing to the belief that “everybody tells white lies on their CV”.

Managers and HR personnel need to be hyper vigilant to ensure that they are not the victims of CV fraud and that they hire the correct candidates. Thorough background checks are critical to determine whether an applicant is being truthful.

Timely screening is especially important, it can be much harder to convince a team of people that a candidate they have become fond of during the application procedure is not who they say they are. At this stage, it is easy for managers to look past proper screening, or presume that someone with an extensive work history has already been vetted by a previous employer to rush the process through.

Studies have shown that applicants who know that background checks won’t be carried out are far more likely to lie on their CV. And, according to credit reference agency Experian, as many as 15% of applicants will drop out of the recruitment process if they know that a thorough background check will be conducted.

Carrying out pre-employment screening is an essential part of the hiring process and companies ignore it at their peril.

Capita Resourcing launches new website

We are pleased to announce the launch of our parent company website and our inclusion within it. Follow the link to take a look for yourself -


The new site also includes a video about security watchdog.

Starbucks Faces Class Action Lawsuit for Alleged FCRA Violations during Applicant Background


Starbucks have allegedly violated requirements under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) for not giving job applicants the opportunity to correct inaccurate details on their background check reports.

In the latest class action to hit the international coffee giant, job applicant Kevin Wills of Georgia USA, claims that Starbucks terminated his employment during the probationary period, after an incorrect spelling of his name led to criminal offences being wrongly added to his background report. The report included instances of domestic violence, reported in a different state and under the name Willis rather than Wills, which were mistakenly blamed to Kevin Wills. This led to his being denied employment with Starbucks.

The FCRA legislation came into force in the US in 1970 and promotes accuracy, fairness and privacy in information used by consumer reporting agencies. Credit reporting agencies in the UK are regulated by both the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Data Protection Act 1998. UK data laws protect applicants in a similar way to the FCRA, and companies must ensure that they comply with the regulations while vetting potential candidates.

FCRA requirements state that employees must be provided with a written copy of their background report and be notified of their rights under FCRA before any adverse action is taken. This allows the consumer time to dispute incorrect or inaccurate information, and discuss the contents of the report with potential employers.

The written report and rights must be provided at least 5 working days before adverse action is taken, something that Starbucks did not do according to Wills.

Accurate background checks are critical during the employment process, to ensure that all candidates have a fair and equal opportunity to employment, and that the right candidate is found for the position.

Mistakes can be costly, and this latest Starbucks case proves that not only should background checks be accurate, they should be completed in a timely and transparent manner and conform to legislation.

Uber losing their London licence for dubious vetting practices


Uber have lost their London license due to dubious vetting practices. London is well known for its stringent transport policies, so much so that it is recognised as one of the safest cities in the world for public transport.

Uber, the ride-hailing app that acts as a middleman between people looking for a lift and freelance drivers, has over 40,000 drivers in London and is used by an estimated 3.5 million people. Uber fares are usually lower than those offered by black cabs and mini cabs and offers users a convenient and economical alternative to traditional taxis. It was first licensed in May 2012 and in May 2017 was given a 3-month temporary license after concerns were raised about Uber’s safety.

TfL have since taken the decision not to renew Uber’s license. It has come under fire for side stepping required standards set by TfL and not following policy which seeks to ensure that all drivers are fit to drive and have passed Enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. TfL have said that Uber did not meet their “rigorous” regulations regarding vetting drivers and reporting serious criminal offences, and have been criticised for the use of its Greyball software, used by Uber to deny rides to anyone who might attempt to disrupt their operations. The Greyball software is in violation of TfL licensing terms because it could allegedly deny rides to law enforcement officers investigating Uber. However, Uber have stated that Greyball has never been used in London, due to the regulations imposed by TfL.

Uber’s license ran out on the 30th September, but can continue to operate until the company has exhausted all of its appeals with TfL. The controversial decision has split opinion, with many taxi firms supporting the verdict, while over 840,000 people have signed a petition to reinstate the license.

Ensuring the safety of all those who use a service is of critical importance to all businesses operating with the public. Uber may well reverse its fate if it can convince TfL that it is capable of effectively screening its drivers as well as taking its responsibility to public safety and the protection of London’s reputation seriously.

HO leaning on Banks to track down illegal workers and over stayers and shutting their bank services


The Home Office have turned to banks to help in their ongoing battle to get control of the UK’s immigration issues.

As part of Teresa May’s plan to create a “hostile environment” for illegal immigrants, banks will now be required to ensure that all account holders are entitled to be in the UK. They will also have the power to shut down any accounts held by those not granted asylum, facing deportation or visa overstayers. Removing access to money and banking services will make staying in the UK much harder according to Home Office officials.

The new legislation which comes into force in January 2018, is part of the Immigration Act 2016, agreed in Parliament in December 2016. Banks have been required to check the immigration status of all those applying for a new account since 2014, but this latest development will target those who have been living in the UK for much longer.

Cifas (the fraud prevention organisation) will provide banks with a list of known illegal immigrants. All account holders will be checked against this list, and those found to be in breach will find that their account has been frozen or will be reported to the Home Office.

The Home Office expects to root out 6,000 people in the first year of using this method, who stated it was “part of our ongoing work to tackle illegal migration.”

But criticisms of the new plan are rife, many believe that banks should not be trusted with such a delicate matter. Mistakes could affect the finances of those living here legally, and problems could prove difficult to rectify. The Home Office has recently come under fire for wrongly sending out deportation demands to people who are eligible to stay in the UK.

Banks must check all established account holders, which is a mammoth task. The Guardian states that 70 million account investigations will take place every quarter.

A Home Office spokesperson described the new legislation as “fair but firm”.