Is it really necessary to get another enhanced CRB check?

[Dovetail27]

Basically I used to work for one primary care trust, which has just a few weeks ago been taken over by another. My job has remained the same, my terms and conditions haven't changed, I am still in the same building and in contact with the same vulnerable adults. The new trust is now requesting a new enhanced CRB check at a large cost to THEM for us all! Our original ones are only 4 weeks old as we were all told to renew them which cost the OLD trust the same amount of money- my question is really about whether it is truly necessary to waist the tax payers money in renewing these checks and if our current ones are deemed to be not satisfactory, in essence should we not be told not to work until the new ones take effect? Does anyone have the legal answer to this? Thanks

[baileybird]

NO legal answer but I can understand fully why a New Trust would insist on that. Working with vulnerable people you will know that CRB checks last 2 years before needing renewing but are not valid if not for the person who asked for them therefore for example LIncolnshire Primary Care Trust would be no good if taken over by say Cambridgeshire Primary Care Trust. If they did not re check, and another Ian Huntley reared their head, they would be liabnle. You may be trustworthy but some people are not and EVERYONE of these people offends for the first time at some stage.

[themas]

Personally, I cannot see any sensible reason for this. If what baileybird says is correct, then it is - in my view - a stupid error in the legislation. There is no possible way in which you, who were checked 4 weeks ago with a check valid for 2 years, suddenly become a risk in need of another check because your employer has been taken over.

Mindless bureaucratic pointlessness!

[buildersmate]

I don't think this is correct - it is just some jobsworth going overboard and wasting (sic) public money.
I've been involved in TUPE situations where staff transferring have accredited security clearance from an agency of a public sector department. One doesn't have to go out again and get all these people re-accredited. The accreditation is tied to the employee, not the combined employee/employer entity.

[baileybird]

I am sorry but I do not agree. I used to be an administrator at a private children's home for lads 11-17 with emotional and bahvioural difficulties and was responsible for checking CRB checks (enhanced) were in correct company name. I enquired initially if we could take individual CRB checks for prospective employees where they were recently checked by another company and was told by CRB that NO, this was not acceptable as we had to be sure that they were 'clean' the day they started with us. I know it is unlikely but as they said, if anything rears it's head and you have not carried out the check personally within your company, you are liable for the outcomes. It was time consuming but we did actually have one applicant that had two entries on CRB check having only been checked 3 months before. They were therefore not employed, although they were not sex or abuse crimes, but purely that they had not divulged at application that they had what I remember as cautions.
CRB checks show which company/institution has carried out the check.

[baileybird]

It's a dear do though as I am sure it was about �6 a check 4 or 5 years ago. It could of course all have changed since I left a couple of years ago.

[baileybird]

sorry to bang on, but thinking about it I am a member of a voluntary first aid organisation, and until recently was Clerk to the Governors and have always had to have individual certificates for them too as they had to shoe employer/organisations name.

[Hawkeye99]

One possible reason is that if the person who had been checked committed an offence then the authorities need to know who to inform. If the CRB check was registered against the first organisation then the details would be sent to them not the second organisation who would remain in the dark.

[baileybird]

Hawkeye - you should have an ology!!!! I bet that is why!

[Dovetail27]

Thankyou all, all your answers are valuable - and to a point I can see the arguement you present. However, this is just literally one trust taking over another - with just a 4 week delay in CRB checking - yes indeed we could ALL have committed an offence during this time AND it is up to us to disclose all of this (and we may not be going through the TUPE process) - but the cost is �75!! IF it is really really necessary then I believe the government should in these cases (TUPE processes) levy a much lesser charge - because ultimately its you guys who are having to pay for this. p.s. waist lol (waste) sorry!

[buildersmate]

Well, Baileybird you seem to know your stuff on this and I accept that I am merely drawing a similar parallel to the CRB situation when I refer to TUPE. Still a waste of money - the check is done at a single moment in time - be it security or CRB or anything else and is valid for a fixed period of time.