Fraud and theft cost UK Companies in excess of £25 million each and every day of trading. Over 75% of business fraud and theft is perpetrated with the collusion of a current employee.

MORI in August 2001 conducted research that found that 33% of applicants admitted to lying on their CV or job application.  A recent survey now shows that figure have risen to 8 out of 10 applicants.

Moreover government agencies and the police strongly recommend that organisations screen potential candidates. Indeed legislation is already in place for many vulnerable groups or industries.

On occassions when employees are dismissed they are able to walk in to a job the next day knowing that their past will not catch up with them. This gives them the opportunity to do the same thing again.

Statistics such as these clearly outline a worrying trend. The financial consequences of this trend place an ever increasing burden on business resources for example

• Lost recruitment and training costs
• Business progress halted until the right candidate is secured
• High Internal Theft Rate
• Legal and tribunal expenses
• Damage to your business' reputation

In light of this, the government and many industries are now recognising the benefits of professional pre-employment vetting services and have acted to introduce this as a regulatory requirement or a standard policy decision.

Whether your business is regulated in this way or you simply wish to lower risk within your own organisation, Reveal Services can help relieve the burden on your Human Resources Department by completing the vetting process on your behalf within an agreed time-scale.

Eight out of ten job applicants admit to lying on their CV to secure a vacancy, with a similar proportion lying during a job interview, research has found.

A survey carried out by Balanced HR also found that almost half of employees lied on their CV to get their current job, with two-thirds saying that they felt their ‘creativity’ had helped them land the role.

Candidates most commonly lied about their qualifications, closely followed by their skills and experience. And almost seven out of ten used a friend as a reference. Almost two-thirds of applicants got outside help to compile their CVs.

The survey also found that the proportion of job applicants with discrepancies had risen 15 per cent on the previous year. The worst offenders during 2006 were women in their late twenties and men in their late thirties, with two-thirds of applicants in each group having some form of discrepancy on their CVs.

Balanced HR's David Swain said that this situation was made worse by the fact that nearly half of companies do not carry out checks on the accuracy of CVs to uncover untruthful applicants.

Companies put in place policies to verify easily-checkable information such as qualifications and previous experience, he added.

"The employment of a recruitment team that scrutinises job applicants will help to avoid these hiring mistakes.

"I know that appointing a dedicated member of staff to handle recruitment issues is beyond the means of smaller firms - So why not outsource this task, Reveal Vetting Services can then make a simple call to an ex-employer and will give you an idea of the personality and work-rate of the prospective employee".

"Managers are running scared as the amount of employment legislation increases and feel it is getting increasingly difficult to get rid of bad staff, making the original decision more important.

"Perhaps it is wise for companies to impose a probationary period on successful job applicants that will act as a trial.

"This will mean that the company has no obligation to employ the candidate long-term and gives them a chance to see if the selection was a wise one,” he said

Royal Mail's staff vetting procedures have been slammed as the service was handed a record £11.4m fine for failing to adequately prevent mail being lost, damaged or stolen

Royal Mail's staff vetting procedures have been slammed as the service was handed a record £11.4m fine for failing to adequately prevent mail being lost, damaged or stolen.

Postal regulator Postcomm said Royal Mail was guilty of "serious breaches" of its licence in relation to mail security measures and staff vetting.

The regulator launched an investigation in 2004 after media reports claimed that some staff were tampering with mail.

Postcomm found that many Royal Mail agency staff were not properly vetted before being employed and this had compromised the safety of deliveries.

Postcomm said Royal Mail had made significant efforts to tackle the problem over the past nine months. However, it said the proposed fine of £11.3m reflected the "extent and seriousness" of the identified shortcomings, most of which could be put down to "management failings".

Royal Mail said the fine was "unreasonable", stressing that it had significantly tightened up its security procedures since 2004.

Gareth Osborne, managing director at the Recruitment & Employment Confederation, said: "Clearly anyone being brought in on a temporary or permanent basis to handle post should undergo a full background check.

"Taking up full references and speaking to previous employers are the basic steps that any employer should take with a new permanent member of staff. No employer should rely solely on the content of an applicant's CV or interview."

Regular surveys have shown that most employee frauds are carried out by individuals whom, if they had gone through a screening process they would not have been employed because of the discrepancies uncovered. By conducting even basic employee screening or pre-employment vetting of applicants organisations greatly reduce the risk of financial loss, fraudulent use of material or information, the misuse of staff time and harm to their reputation. Employers need to ensure that the people they employ are really who they say they are and have the experience and qualifications that made them want to employ them in the first place. The need for efficient employee screening does not end with protection from dishonesty or harm to reputation. It also affords company directors a higher degree of protection from the likelihood of corporate liability claims.

The only reliable way to ensure that representations are real facts is to validate them utilising an objective third party who has not been involved in the recruitment and interview process. The types of information that should be checked during an employee screening include:

• Personal Data: to confirm that the applicant is who he/she says they are
• Judicial/Legal Data: civil litigation, credit history, bankruptcy and the like
• Employment History: this is particularly important as previous employers are usually only willing to supply the barest of references
• Credentials: educational achievements, professional qualifications, professional or occupational licensing.

We have seen instances where:

• An applicant who used a fraudulently altered copy of his son's birth certificate
• An applicant who had severe current financial problems including numerous County Court judgements
• An applicant who had omitted his time in prison from his application for a senior management role
• An applicant who had various well publicised convictions and lengthy jail sentences for financial fraud