It is not unusual for job applicants to turn their CV into a document of complete fiction. What most of them don't realise is that this little bit of marketing chicanery is a criminal offense that can land them in pretty hot water. Most recently a senior NHS manager was given a criminal record for lying on his CV. The article below was originally published in personneltoday.com. Read on...
_______________________________________________________
Suspended sentence for NHS manager who lied on his CV
Louisa Peacock 22 March 2010 16:18
A senior NHS manager who lied on his CV has been given a 12-month suspended prison sentence and told to carry out 200 hours of unpaid community work.
Hasan Tahsin, former head of estates and capital projects at Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust, made fraudulent claims about his qualifications and memberships of professional bodies when he applied to several posts at five NHS trusts between March 2004 and March 2009. The skills required, including project management and estates management, were essential for each position.
Tahsin was discovered following an audit of senior managers' qualifications for the trust. He was arrested and interviewed by the NHS Counter-Fraud Service in May 2009, when he admitted he had lied to get the jobs - which fraudulently earned him £245,246 during five years.
Tahsin, 54, of Chadwell Heath in Romford, Essex, held responsible positions within the NHS dating back to 1990.
Investigating officer Alan McGill, of the NHS Counter-Fraud Service, said: "It is regrettable that Tahsin managed to secure senior management posts within the NHS for so long. Such deceptions are the exception and the vast majority of NHS staff are of high integrity.
"This case demonstrates that when suspicions of fraud are brought to the attention of the NHS Counter-Fraud Service, we will thoroughly investigate and, where fraud is found, will seek to prosecute."
The case follows that of senior NHS HR manager Kerrie Devine, of Lympstone, Devon, who lied on her CV by claiming she held a degree in HR management and was part way through a CIPD course. Devine was given a six-month suspended prison sentence and ordered to pay £9,600 in compensation.
Tuesday 23 March 2010
Monday 1 March 2010
FSA consults on referencing for Approved Persons
The FSA is currently consulting the industry on several issues that affect how you deal with regulated references as well as how you recruit significant influence functions individuals (SIFs) – CP10/3 January 26, 2010
This paper is of particular interest to those of you involved in recruiting employees for controlled functions and in overseeing, developing and administering processes for complying with the FSA’s approved persons regime.
You can send your comment to the FSA by 28 April 2010. The FSA will finalise the proposals and aim to publish the final rules in a policy statement during the third quarter of 2010.
You can read the whole paper at: http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/cp/cp10_03.pdf
Below are some highlights on what is proposed:
Clarification of our position on ‘compromise agreements’
3.20 We propose to amend the Supervision manual (SUP 10) to give further guidance on our rules that require firms to disclose information where an individual is suspected of doing something that may result in dismissal, or resigns while under investigation by the firm, or there are issues that may affect our assessment of the individual’s fitness and propriety to be able to perform a controlled function.
3.21 Occasionally, firms or candidates will cite confidentiality clauses in a ‘compromise agreement’ as a reason for not providing relevant information regarding the circumstances of an employee’s departure from their previous employment.
3.22 In our view, the requirements of our principles and rules override any duty of confidentiality entered into between a firm and its employee. We therefore propose to add guidance to our rules to clarify this.
4.6 The onus is on the firm to provide sufficient information in the application process to satisfy us that they have fully assessed the candidate and can confirm that they are fit and proper under section 61 of FSMA. Failure to do so can represent for us an important indicator of the quality of the firm’s systems and controls for recruitment, and persistent failures to provide robust information in support of applications may result in us taking further supervisory action.
4.7 The type of information that will help us to make our approval decision includes details of the:
• responsibilities that the role involves and the competences that it requires;
• recruitment, referencing, interview and appointment processes;
• due diligence undertaken by the firm to ensure the candidate is fit and proper; and
• firm’s rationale for concluding that the candidate is fit and proper to perform the role in question, including an assessment of the competence of the candidate and information about any action to be taken post-appointment to address any developmental gaps or training needs that have been identified.
It may also include supporting documentation or reports from third parties, such as head-hunter or other similar reports.
4.8 In 2008 we made changes to Section 6 of the application form (Form A), which now asks firms to provide details of the due diligence undertaken on the candidate. During 2010, we intend to make further changes to this section of the application form to remind firms to supply the above information where appropriate.
4.9 Where firms can demonstrate they have undertaken appropriate due diligence this may remove the need for us to conduct an interview.
4.10 Firms will also note, in relation to ‘referencing’:
• our proposal on ‘compromise agreements’ outlined in paragraphs 3.20 to 3.22; and
• our intention to provide guidance to clarify that the requirement upon firms to provide information on ex-employees who performed controlled functions for them overrides any confidentiality provision they may have agreed with their ex-employee.
4.12 To further assist firms in managing the time pressures that may arise when submitting applications that may involve an interview, firms can submit applications before they have fully completed their own due diligence checks (e.g. Criminal Records Bureau and/or credit checks outstanding). In these instances, firms must use Section 6 of the application form to detail the due diligence checks they have already performed on the candidate before submission, and those that are outstanding (which will be completed by the firm before appointment). This will allow us to take the process forward, but we will expect firms to provide supplementary information about the outcomes of their final checks before final approval can be granted.
10.13.
7A
G The obligations to supply information to the FSA under SUP 10.13.7 R
apply notwithstanding any agreement or any other arrangements entered into
by a firm and an employee upon termination of the employee’s employment.
A firm should not enter into any such arrangements or agreements that could
conflict with its obligations under this section. Failing to disclose relevant
information to the FSA may be a criminal offence under section 398 of the
Act.
This paper is of particular interest to those of you involved in recruiting employees for controlled functions and in overseeing, developing and administering processes for complying with the FSA’s approved persons regime.
You can send your comment to the FSA by 28 April 2010. The FSA will finalise the proposals and aim to publish the final rules in a policy statement during the third quarter of 2010.
You can read the whole paper at: http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/cp/cp10_03.pdf
Below are some highlights on what is proposed:
Clarification of our position on ‘compromise agreements’
3.20 We propose to amend the Supervision manual (SUP 10) to give further guidance on our rules that require firms to disclose information where an individual is suspected of doing something that may result in dismissal, or resigns while under investigation by the firm, or there are issues that may affect our assessment of the individual’s fitness and propriety to be able to perform a controlled function.
3.21 Occasionally, firms or candidates will cite confidentiality clauses in a ‘compromise agreement’ as a reason for not providing relevant information regarding the circumstances of an employee’s departure from their previous employment.
3.22 In our view, the requirements of our principles and rules override any duty of confidentiality entered into between a firm and its employee. We therefore propose to add guidance to our rules to clarify this.
4.6 The onus is on the firm to provide sufficient information in the application process to satisfy us that they have fully assessed the candidate and can confirm that they are fit and proper under section 61 of FSMA. Failure to do so can represent for us an important indicator of the quality of the firm’s systems and controls for recruitment, and persistent failures to provide robust information in support of applications may result in us taking further supervisory action.
4.7 The type of information that will help us to make our approval decision includes details of the:
• responsibilities that the role involves and the competences that it requires;
• recruitment, referencing, interview and appointment processes;
• due diligence undertaken by the firm to ensure the candidate is fit and proper; and
• firm’s rationale for concluding that the candidate is fit and proper to perform the role in question, including an assessment of the competence of the candidate and information about any action to be taken post-appointment to address any developmental gaps or training needs that have been identified.
It may also include supporting documentation or reports from third parties, such as head-hunter or other similar reports.
4.8 In 2008 we made changes to Section 6 of the application form (Form A), which now asks firms to provide details of the due diligence undertaken on the candidate. During 2010, we intend to make further changes to this section of the application form to remind firms to supply the above information where appropriate.
4.9 Where firms can demonstrate they have undertaken appropriate due diligence this may remove the need for us to conduct an interview.
4.10 Firms will also note, in relation to ‘referencing’:
• our proposal on ‘compromise agreements’ outlined in paragraphs 3.20 to 3.22; and
• our intention to provide guidance to clarify that the requirement upon firms to provide information on ex-employees who performed controlled functions for them overrides any confidentiality provision they may have agreed with their ex-employee.
4.12 To further assist firms in managing the time pressures that may arise when submitting applications that may involve an interview, firms can submit applications before they have fully completed their own due diligence checks (e.g. Criminal Records Bureau and/or credit checks outstanding). In these instances, firms must use Section 6 of the application form to detail the due diligence checks they have already performed on the candidate before submission, and those that are outstanding (which will be completed by the firm before appointment). This will allow us to take the process forward, but we will expect firms to provide supplementary information about the outcomes of their final checks before final approval can be granted.
10.13.
7A
G The obligations to supply information to the FSA under SUP 10.13.7 R
apply notwithstanding any agreement or any other arrangements entered into
by a firm and an employee upon termination of the employee’s employment.
A firm should not enter into any such arrangements or agreements that could
conflict with its obligations under this section. Failing to disclose relevant
information to the FSA may be a criminal offence under section 398 of the
Act.
Credit Rating Myths
In our business we often get questions from clients and candidates about what affects their credit rating and whether pre-employment credit checks leave a footprint. To set the record straight, pre-employment credit checks do not affect your credit rating and do not leave a footprint. Below are some more myth-busters about credit ratings as reported in the TimesOnLine.
_____________________________________________
1. People who have lived in your home before you do not affect your credit rating. The only people that affect your rating are those you have a financial connection with – for example, a joint account or joint mortgage.
2. Registering to vote will improve your credit rating.
3. Checking your credit report will not harm your rating.
4. There is no “credit blacklist”. Many consumers mistakenly believe that lenders hold a database of blacklisted people that will never again be given credit. This is untrue.
5. Paying a mobile phone bill late will damage your credit rating. Always pay all bills on time to keep your record squeaky clean.
6. All applications for credit made in the last 12 months appear on your report – although the report does not detail whether or not the applications were successful. If you have made numerous applications recently, this will damage your record.
7. The size of your credit limit affects your rating. If you have large amounts of credit already available, such as an overdraft and credit cards, you are less likely to be given new credit.
8. Getting married or divorced does not affect your credit record. The record only notes financial connections – so if you are divorced but still have a joint account, your credit rating will still be linked to your ex-partner’s.
9. If a credit account is in default, this will stay on your credit record for six years.
10. If you do remove your name from a joint account, you should still tell a credit reference agency you want to "disassociate" yourself from that person.
Source: Experian
_____________________________________________
1. People who have lived in your home before you do not affect your credit rating. The only people that affect your rating are those you have a financial connection with – for example, a joint account or joint mortgage.
2. Registering to vote will improve your credit rating.
3. Checking your credit report will not harm your rating.
4. There is no “credit blacklist”. Many consumers mistakenly believe that lenders hold a database of blacklisted people that will never again be given credit. This is untrue.
5. Paying a mobile phone bill late will damage your credit rating. Always pay all bills on time to keep your record squeaky clean.
6. All applications for credit made in the last 12 months appear on your report – although the report does not detail whether or not the applications were successful. If you have made numerous applications recently, this will damage your record.
7. The size of your credit limit affects your rating. If you have large amounts of credit already available, such as an overdraft and credit cards, you are less likely to be given new credit.
8. Getting married or divorced does not affect your credit record. The record only notes financial connections – so if you are divorced but still have a joint account, your credit rating will still be linked to your ex-partner’s.
9. If a credit account is in default, this will stay on your credit record for six years.
10. If you do remove your name from a joint account, you should still tell a credit reference agency you want to "disassociate" yourself from that person.
Source: Experian
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
