A 65 pound DBS (CRB) check for a job I may not get? Is this normal?

Question

I recently went for a job interview and (towards the end) they asked me to put 65 pounds on the table for a DBS check (previously CRB check) which is required for the job. However, they (the company) cannot guarantee that if the DBS check is clear/ no convictions, they will offer me the job. In other words, I may pay the 65 pound and don't get the job.. which is obviously a risk. Is this normal?? And is it possible that the company tries to make money out of this? What do I do??

Answer 1

Companies who require DBS checks pay for it themselves. I'm thinking that they've had several applications who have been successful at the interview stage and then failed the CRB check and they are fed up with the costs, therefore are testing people's reactions to this request. If you have, or could have something to hide, you won't pay the costs.



I personally would tell them that if they want me, they pay for the CRB check like all the other companies out there.



As for putting it on the table, suspicious.



KD

Answer 2

The usual cost for a CRB/dbs check at an enhanced level is around £55-£60. £44 of that goes directly to the Disclosure and Barring Service and the remainder will be an admin fee that goes to the organisation who process the application. £65 is rather steep but not unheard of.



But it is a bit strange that they say they might not hire you even if it comes back clear. If they have no intention of hiring you, they would be breaking the law to request a DBS check under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. So that part is rather dodgy.



You should only ever hand over the money if you have been offered the job 'subject to a satisfactory DBS check', otherwise it's really not worth the risk, as you say, you could be throwing money down the drain.

Answer 3

No, not likely to be making money on this. The costs there are the actual costs.



I've gone through clearance several times and it's costly and timely. I've cleared each time and secured the work I was going for.



Key question though has to be the "we can't guarantee you a job" bit. I think you need to go back to the employer / agency and say something like:



"I am happy to pay these costs on the premise that it leads to work. If it comes back negative and I don't get the job for that reason then I understand and I'll pay the costs. If it comes back positive and I don't get the job then you have to pay the costs (within 28 days)".



I'd want a contract to that affect. It takes ten minutes for an employer to draw something up like this.



That to me sounds very fair but I am an IT contractor and happy to pay for checks in order to win work. If you are a perm then you are absolutely in your right to say "You are paying. If you want your staff checked, you are paying.". In practice, it depends on what you do and the job you are going for. It's not a case of one size fits all.



Final note: we should keep in mind some clearance procedures can be done by the employer, some can't (such as Disclosure Scotland). Most employers / clients simply say that you must provide evidence (the certificate) of clearance if they are not able to do the checks.

Answer 4

I find this rather strange. I have applied for jobs where it says the cost will be met by the applicant but i haven't heard of paying before you're even offered the job. I would be wary.

Answer 5

It's certainly not uncommon, but what is slightly unusual is that the company can't say if they will offer you the job if the check (and presumably your references) are OK.



Standard check is £26, enhanced £44.



What do you do? Up to you. Either agree and pay; say you'll pay only if you can be sure of a job if the check is clear; or just say no.