Discriminating against bad credit history

[payingonlyencouragesthem]

In recent years some employers have started credit checking job applicants, even though there is no possible credit exposure involved in hiring them. I and others I know have been turned down on this basis yet been hired by other companies in the same industry with the same regulator.This sounds to me like unnecessary data processing and unlawful discrimination. Anyone any views?

[patdavies]

I was under the impression that a company needed your permission (at some stage) to perform a credit check - as the very act of checking can affect your credit rating.

[Ell-enn]

Patdavies - I was under the same impression. My son works in the prison service and on the application form it stated that they may (depending on the status of the job) credit check applicants. You have to sign the form to apply. I would have thought that any employer would have had to have this clause in their application form if they want to credit check.

[davethorp]

Will the pointless credit checking end?

 

Oddly enough I've had a petition running for a few months now to try and stop credit checking unless you are actually applying for credit. Anyone interested can find it HERE

[payingonlyencouragesthem]

I was under the impression that a company needed your permission (at some stage) to perform a credit check - as the very act of checking can affect your credit rating.

 

True but if you don't give permission you won't get the job:(. I don't think seeking permission like this would make it lawful to discriminate.

[payingonlyencouragesthem]

Will the pointless credit checking end?

 

Oddly enough I've had a petition running for a few months now to try and stop credit checking unless you are actually applying for credit. Anyone interested can find it HERE

 

I'm sure it contravenes at least one of the principals of Data Processing. Unfortunately unless someone brings a successful test case we will soon need to pass a credit check if we want to use a public lavatory.

[patrickq1]

HAVE A LOOK AT THIS THREAD SEE IF IT HELPS EXPLAIN WHAT THE DATA PROTECTION MEANS,,,,ZILCH?

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collectors-debt-collection/112671-cag-cra-r-club-8.html?highlight=scor

[davethorp]

I'm sure it contravenes at least one of the principals of Data Processing. Unfortunately unless someone brings a successful test case we will soon need to pass a credit check if we want to use a public lavatory.

 

Glad I'm not the only one who thinks that

[davjoh]

I don't believe it is necessarily discrimination to do so... the reasons for credit checking applicants for jobs can be quite varied:

 

- exposure to company cash

- if a person owes money they may be more inclined to take bribes (hence attested constables and judicial post holders are checked)

- a further means of checking identity (looking for CIFAS flags or suspicious activity indicators)

 

Any information they consider must be processed fairly and lawfully. Since you do not have access to the credit information it is likely to be unfair to decline someone employment on the basis of a poor score unless you can demonstrate you have given the applicant opportunity to address the score, which must be considered fully and upon its merits.

 

Dave

[payingonlyencouragesthem]

I don't believe it is necessarily discrimination to do so... the reasons for credit checking applicants for jobs can be quite varied:

 

- exposure to company cash

- if a person owes money they may be more inclined to take bribes (hence attested constables and judicial post holders are checked)

- a further means of checking identity (looking for CIFAS flags or suspicious activity indicators)

 

Any information they consider must be processed fairly and lawfully. Since you do not have access to the credit information it is likely to be unfair to decline someone employment on the basis of a poor score unless you can demonstrate you have given the applicant opportunity to address the score, which must be considered fully and upon its merits.

 

Dave

 

I have been automatically declined on the basis of credit scoring without in any way applying for company cash or corruption vulnerable positions. CIFAS / identity didn't come into the equation. Whilst the interviewers were sympathetic over the fact that I was hit by divorce and redundancy at the same time their hands were tied by in house rules. Unfortunately people at the top of some organisations have made their minds up that credit scores are irrefutable and infallible character references. They don't realise that credit scores don't differentiate between someone who has had a misfortune and a spiv who has maxed his credit cards out and done a runner.

[davjoh]

The only thing I can say buddy is that if a company has that type of ethos from the outset, do you really want to work there?

 

My 2p.

 

Best of luck with the job hunting

 

Dave

[payingonlyencouragesthem]

The only thing I can say buddy is that if a company has that type of ethos from the outset, do you really want to work there?

 

My 2p.

 

Best of luck with the job hunting

 

Dave

 

Very good point NO!!!

[patrickq1]

i can agree with dav concerningthe aplication credit check ,this is more than likely to check that the aplicant is not in any finacial troubles and to avert a possible bribe....that said some job aplications are nowere near this category and it can if you have a mind to ,bring forward a prosecution for undue influence,but i thing a judge may look upon it as a requirement...but i have always maintaned this should rightfully so be a seperate aplication but also the wording should be fair as to say before we check with certain companies you shall be notified and to place your objections for reasons of...failing this it can then be identified as failing to adhere to the DPA act ,as it stands this is an unfair contract and if anyone can afford to bring about a prosecution for either undue influence and breaking the dpa act their is a case to answer,so perhaps one may do it one day and this would then make and set some sort of precedent within the act to make the credit check available on a seperate contract,after all this is a contract within itself.saying that i have crossed out for the last two years any permissions for a credit check,to date i have not had one objection,a few raised eyebrows perhaps but who cares they have a choice then to breack the law thus giving me a clear mandate to begin an imediate prosecution,this is the option i choose to use and if i get a no then i have prepared myself for possible rejection whatever it is.but at least i have made a conceous choice free from any undue influence,at the moment this is not the case you are under the influence on a standard contract i cannot think of one without and seem to remember some 6 years ago possibly more when you went for a job application you were always asked politely do you mind we check with your previous employer...now the rules have changed through goverment but without going through parliment and if it did then it would be open to a free debate and i whink the seperate contract would win the day...goverment opposition can consist of only one arguement TERROR ARGUMENT and some bright spark would use the "what if they want to work in the nuclear industry"again their is nothing to stop the argument from being on a seperate contract......THIS can be used on most of the cases we have seen to date as an addition UNDUE INFLUENCE it

I

would like to say look at andrew 1 last thoughts on CREDIT CARDS AND DCAs which is correct in kids getting cards at 17...but the higher ups goverment banks etc want a cashless society this way they can track money laundering,with this said i really object to this as a for instance if i save 50,000 and keep it under the bed you would be acused of money laundering and being accused this then puts you in a position of having to explain you saved it...but it is about time that it was the other way round and they must beyond any shadow of a doubt prove it was the effects of money laundering.....so many arguements where the law has switched to YOU PROVE IT FIRST making you the victim of abuse and the feeling s of but i have nt done anything wrong yet you feel criminalised and hurt that your word is no longer your bond....I myself are guilty of seeing rubbish on telly of do gooders and liberties but slowly beginning to realise that our liberties are being dwindled and i for one now take notice of the arguement to see if it identifies with my princples,sadly i ignore the plight of others human rights ,when it comes to the likes of GREENHAM COMMON this is not political by the way i am explaining that we have basic rights and some arguement are best left with the politicions but it is up to us to excercise this by contact with the MP who we have really gave carte blanch as to do what he wants to do istead of telling him i want you to do this collectively...this is why when we read about that poor woman who felt so ashamed of being tarnished with debt(not apparently hers)she could nt find a VOICE out their so it up to us to make a stand that we have been at fault but now have a chance of doing something positive and we could start with the poor lady who took her life ...and WRITE TO YOUR MP and DEMAND AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE DCAs and their NEW ORGANISATION now is the time to SQUASH THEBUGS out of the system and have a reallity check and make the banks take notice that your time has come TRANSPARENCEY is the first objective

[payingonlyencouragesthem]

"i have crossed out for the last two years any permissions for a credit check,to date i have not had one objection,a few raised eyebrows perhaps but who cares they have a choice then to breack the law thus giving me a clear mandate to begin an imediate prosecution,this is the option i choose to use and if i get a no then i have prepared myself for possible rejection whatever it is."

 

Duh!! That probably is the best thing to do. It's a bit like keeping your mouth shut and having people think you are an idiot as opposed to opening it and have them know for sure:).

[Nicegirl1]

I can't believe that davethorp's petition to stop the pointless credit checks by employers only got 13 signatures.

 

Wake up CAGers, this is a big issue, people are being denied jobs and losing them because of often inaccurate information held by CRAs who as we all know are owned by DCAs and have their own agenda. The CRAs are unregulated and their decision to keep information for 6 years has no legal basis. These so called 'records' should only be accessed by those seeking to grant credit not by any company who chooses to do so. The concept that anyone who has a poor credit history is dishonest is atrocious and discriminatory.

 

People who have committed crimes are allowed to be rehabilitated and the crimes are not held against them, but miss a credit card payment and you're stuffed!

 

WE're sleepwalking into letting CRAs rule our lives. Lets get together and change this as we've changed the banking world. I suggest that we get the Human Rights angle on this and the support of some MPs.

[patdavies]

I suggest that we get the Human Rights angle on this and the support of some MPs.

 

Be aware the current Human Rights legislation applies to the relationship between the State and the individual. it does not apply to private companies.

 

Obviously, some rights exist in both; but the HRA applies only to the State.