a question RE: Cireco Ltd & RLP

[Naxxas]

i note from my investigations that Jacqueline Lambert is the Director of both these companies.

 

for those who dont know, Cireco Ltd offer pre-screening services of potential employees for companies who sign up to her database of dishonesty "their previous description not mine"

 

is she legally entitled to process data from one company to the other to form the basis of a business?

 

they charge you in store under RLP and process your data to Cireco Ltd (a subsidiary company) and effecitvely SELL your data as a product?

 

is this legal? have you looked into this Joncris?

[Naxxas]

from her website:

 

In order to comply with the DPA in relation to recruitment, the client will need to ensure that application forms contain the following information:

“We will verify any information you supply to us about your identity, your honesty and your credit status via screening checks. These contain information about the address given, those involved in theft, shoplifting and defrauding employers and County Court Judgment information. Evidence of dishonesty or the provision of false information about your identity or honesty will mean that you will not be selected for employment”

In addition, clients are advised that the following information should be included in contracts of employment:

“We may verify any information you have supplied to us about your identity and your honesty at any time during the course of your employment. Evidence of your dishonesty may result in the termination of your employment.”

Clients are advised that any action taken in connection with existing employees will have to be in compliance with the statutory disciplinary and dismissal procedures in force. Clients are strongly advised not to use the search results as the sole basis for any employment decision and Cireco will not be liable for any losses as a result of the Client so doing.

[ScarletPimpernel]

The point to note, of course, is that RLP/Cireco rarely have 'evidence of dishonesty' - just the subjective opinions of rentacops in shops.

 

Does anyone else see a parallel between Cireco's bogus database of 'dishonest' persons and the database of construction workers that ended in a world of hurt for its creators?

[caledfwlch]

The point to note, of course, is that RLP/Cireco rarely have 'evidence of dishonesty' - just the subjective opinions of rentacops in shops.

 

Does anyone else see a parallel between Cireco's bogus database of 'dishonest' persons and the database of construction workers that ended in a world of hurt for its creators?

 

Isn't this company actually committing libel, and is breaching data protection by the databases very existence since at least 99% of "fraudsters" on it have never been charged, cautioned, or even taken to civil court ?

 

I would have thought failure to offer a position based on this database would leave Cireco, RLP AND the potential employer open to being sued?

[JonCris]

I like the bit where they are disclaiming any liability to their clients for any losses which may occur as a result of their data base being used, In other words if someone is either denied employment or sacked because of their many falsehoods & they sue their client it ain't their fault ........... they wish:rolleyes:

[Huff&Puff]

I wonder how this "database of dishonest persons" sits with th Rehabilitation of Offenders Act? Because there don't appear to be any time limits as to how long a person would remain on the database, and it would appear that they are riding roughshod over certain legally enshrined rights.

[Naxxas]

I wonder how this "database of dishonest persons" sits with th Rehabilitation of Offenders Act? Because there don't appear to be any time limits as to how long a person would remain on the database, and it would appear that they are riding roughshod over certain legally enshrined rights.

 

 

its a little to close to the bone for my liking that they throw out these banning orders, force people to sign forms they dont get a copy of, then sell that data to companies as some form of "screening" for employment, its almost like its "allegedly" in her best interests to get as many names on this bogus list as possible to further her other company's profits.

 

i think i may write a letter to ICO and see exactly what they do with this information and how they feel about how its is obtained in relation to both companies, and wether there is a conflict of interest here, i personally think there is.

 

id love to slap them where it hurts, in the wallet!