Agency wanting a copy of my passport?
Discussion
Just started a new contract and I have the agency wanting a copy of my passport!
I'm set up as a Ltd co and have opted out, so from my understanding they don't need a copy. I offered to write a letter stating all my employees are eligible for employment in the UK but this isn't good enough.
Are they entitled to a copy of my passport and is it even legal to make a photocopy? Or, am I just being a PITA and should let it go?
I'm set up as a Ltd co and have opted out, so from my understanding they don't need a copy. I offered to write a letter stating all my employees are eligible for employment in the UK but this isn't good enough.
Are they entitled to a copy of my passport and is it even legal to make a photocopy? Or, am I just being a PITA and should let it go?
ZZR said:
mmm-five said:
What do they do if you don't have a passport?
The government website provides info on what is acceptable proof of ID and right to work information.Basically you have to provide birth certificate, national insurance info, proof of address etc etc.
I won't be pointing this out to them though.
It's the law.
We take a copy of your passport as it's the easiest way of verifying that you are a UK citizen and therefore entitled to work here. We have to do it for everyone even if you are called John Smith and from London and are obviously English.
The penalties if we get it wrong are huge so we do it for everyone.
We take a copy of your passport as it's the easiest way of verifying that you are a UK citizen and therefore entitled to work here. We have to do it for everyone even if you are called John Smith and from London and are obviously English.
The penalties if we get it wrong are huge so we do it for everyone.
I can see the immigrants rifling though the wase bins of Agencies, for paperwork and memory sticks, already.
TBH I can't see why (pragmatically) they would need your passport if they're employng the services of a limited company registered in the UK.
I mean I can't see British Gas asking for the passport of the CEO at Oracle, or for that matter the Oracle contractor that actually does the work maintaining databases at British Gas.
Agencies eh? Don't trust the man in the middle (so the law says).
TBH I can't see why (pragmatically) they would need your passport if they're employng the services of a limited company registered in the UK.
I mean I can't see British Gas asking for the passport of the CEO at Oracle, or for that matter the Oracle contractor that actually does the work maintaining databases at British Gas.
Agencies eh? Don't trust the man in the middle (so the law says).
Edited by dilbert on Wednesday 15th October 17:38
Piglet said:
I think for anti money laundering purposes they may well have to establish that the directors of the company are who they should be in the same way that they do for individuals.
To be honest there are way more things in life to worry about!
Doh.To be honest there are way more things in life to worry about!
They could easily access the companies house website to find
information on directors etc.
After all, the agency is only the middleman.
Copy of a passport is basically a very major part of identity cloning.
dcb said:
Piglet said:
I think for anti money laundering purposes they may well have to establish that the directors of the company are who they should be in the same way that they do for individuals.
To be honest there are way more things in life to worry about!
Doh.To be honest there are way more things in life to worry about!
They could easily access the companies house website to find
information on directors etc.
After all, the agency is only the middleman.
Copy of a passport is basically a very major part of identity cloning.
It doesn't have to be a passport, as someone said above there are a whole raft of documents that will suffice.
The PCG said:
Reasons for the requests
We approached the relevant trade bodies, REC and ATSCo, for confirmation of why agencies might request ID. While their replies are not legally definitive they do provide an insight into why agencies feel obliged to make such requests. REC pointed primarily to the requirement established by the Asylum and Immigration Act for employment businesses to verify that their employees are legally entitled to work in the UK. ATSCo referred to the requirement created by recent Money Laundering Regulations for “regulated businesses” to check the identity of any business or individual with whom they deal: while employment businesses are not “regulated” many opted to make these checks in case they are classified as such in the future.
Legislative Requirements
The 2003 Agency Regulations state that, where the contractor has not opted out, their identity must be checked. The form of the check is, however, not specified in the legislation. The Guidance published with the legislation suggested that the check should be on documentation such as passports, but this is not on the record as Parliament's clear intention and therefore not strictly binding.
The Immigration and Asylum Act obliges employers to verify a worker's identity and the Immigration (Restrictions on Employment) Order of 2004 also obliges employers to check entitlement to work in the UK and to satisfy themselves that any documentation pertains to the worker who provided it. In both cases, “employer” does not extend to people engaging workers on a contract for services. That said, the risk always exists, however slight, that a contractor may be found to be employed. The end-user or Employment Business could possibly be held liable in this situation if a worker was found to be working illegally.
PCG Advice
While there is no requirement for identity to be checked when a proper contract for services exists, realistically agencies and employment businesses are likely to want to adopt ID checks as standard procedure. It is also clearly the intention of the Government that agencies and employment businesses should check workers' identity.
There is no requirement on contractors to provide such evidence. PCG advice is, however, that there is no compelling reason not to comply with such requests. Any contractor who declines to co-operate does so at the risk of ruling themselves out of a contract. While members may have understandable concerns over, for instance, the risk of identity theft, it is of course for the individual to consider these against the possibility of having to decline an engagement.
Some members have observed that a contractor employed by a big consultancy firm would not be required to provide ID. This is true, but only because the firm for which they work will have checked their identity already. With a one person company, this is not self-evident and agencies' caution is understandable.
Members who have questioned the legality of reproducing passports and other documents may also be assured that, as ATSCo observed when offering their official position, such reproduction for these purposes is common practice and entirely legitimate. Members may wish to arrange for copies to be verified and signed by a solicitor or doctor and retain a number of these for future use. Unverified copies will often be acceptable in practice. To avoid their accidental loss, PCG advises members not to send original documents unless necessary and to satisfy themselves that any documents sent are stored securely.
We can further reassure members, in line with advice from both Accountax and Lawspeed, that providing ID would have no adverse implications with regard to IR35. It would not be related to the actual work and, as a request by the agency, would not have any impact on the hypothetical contract between contractor and end-user. It does not, therefore, have any bearing on the criteria by which IR35 status is assessed.
We approached the relevant trade bodies, REC and ATSCo, for confirmation of why agencies might request ID. While their replies are not legally definitive they do provide an insight into why agencies feel obliged to make such requests. REC pointed primarily to the requirement established by the Asylum and Immigration Act for employment businesses to verify that their employees are legally entitled to work in the UK. ATSCo referred to the requirement created by recent Money Laundering Regulations for “regulated businesses” to check the identity of any business or individual with whom they deal: while employment businesses are not “regulated” many opted to make these checks in case they are classified as such in the future.
Legislative Requirements
The 2003 Agency Regulations state that, where the contractor has not opted out, their identity must be checked. The form of the check is, however, not specified in the legislation. The Guidance published with the legislation suggested that the check should be on documentation such as passports, but this is not on the record as Parliament's clear intention and therefore not strictly binding.
The Immigration and Asylum Act obliges employers to verify a worker's identity and the Immigration (Restrictions on Employment) Order of 2004 also obliges employers to check entitlement to work in the UK and to satisfy themselves that any documentation pertains to the worker who provided it. In both cases, “employer” does not extend to people engaging workers on a contract for services. That said, the risk always exists, however slight, that a contractor may be found to be employed. The end-user or Employment Business could possibly be held liable in this situation if a worker was found to be working illegally.
PCG Advice
While there is no requirement for identity to be checked when a proper contract for services exists, realistically agencies and employment businesses are likely to want to adopt ID checks as standard procedure. It is also clearly the intention of the Government that agencies and employment businesses should check workers' identity.
There is no requirement on contractors to provide such evidence. PCG advice is, however, that there is no compelling reason not to comply with such requests. Any contractor who declines to co-operate does so at the risk of ruling themselves out of a contract. While members may have understandable concerns over, for instance, the risk of identity theft, it is of course for the individual to consider these against the possibility of having to decline an engagement.
Some members have observed that a contractor employed by a big consultancy firm would not be required to provide ID. This is true, but only because the firm for which they work will have checked their identity already. With a one person company, this is not self-evident and agencies' caution is understandable.
Members who have questioned the legality of reproducing passports and other documents may also be assured that, as ATSCo observed when offering their official position, such reproduction for these purposes is common practice and entirely legitimate. Members may wish to arrange for copies to be verified and signed by a solicitor or doctor and retain a number of these for future use. Unverified copies will often be acceptable in practice. To avoid their accidental loss, PCG advises members not to send original documents unless necessary and to satisfy themselves that any documents sent are stored securely.
We can further reassure members, in line with advice from both Accountax and Lawspeed, that providing ID would have no adverse implications with regard to IR35. It would not be related to the actual work and, as a request by the agency, would not have any impact on the hypothetical contract between contractor and end-user. It does not, therefore, have any bearing on the criteria by which IR35 status is assessed.
Piglet said:
dcb said:
Piglet said:
I think for anti money laundering purposes they may well have to establish that the directors of the company are who they should be in the same way that they do for individuals.
To be honest there are way more things in life to worry about!
Doh.To be honest there are way more things in life to worry about!
They could easily access the companies house website to find
information on directors etc.
After all, the agency is only the middleman.
Copy of a passport is basically a very major part of identity cloning.
It doesn't have to be a passport, as someone said above there are a whole raft of documents that will suffice.
It wouldn't stop a director cloning himself with immigrants to maximise earning potential. But the passport doesn't prevent people from cloning passports. At the end of the day, any company is responsible for the people it employs, and if operating in an inappropriate way, it can be shut down.
If many agencies are the outsourced HR departments of big companies, then the government turning them into passport checkers for potential employees, is like creating a government mandated intelligence gathering agency and social policy enforcer.... Like the Stasi and the SS.
They may not (appear to) behave like that yet, but it's only because it's not seen as socially acceptable. Over time peoples perceptions change. Those who benefit accept the negative aspects, but those who don't become a bigger and bigger minority.
Speed cameras are a good example.
It may be the law, but IMO, it's wrong. It's not wrong because of any of the things the things I mention about social engineering. Those are the unfortunate inevitabilities, with time. It's wrong because companies have become divorced of their responsibility to understand exactly who they are employing.
Edited by dilbert on Thursday 16th October 11:14
I think I'll give up on this discussion, I'm in a profession where I can get locked up for not disclosing that my neighbour's builder is not declaring his earnings! It doesn't all make sense and a lot of it may not be "right" but it's how the anti-money laundering law is currently and the immigration stuff (which I know nothing about) clearly impacts on this area as well.
I pay the post office to deliver my mail, but I don't expect to have to check that the postman is a legit worker. I simply expect that the post office do these checks and if not then they are responsible in the eyes of the law.
To that end, my own limited company must be treated in the same way by the agency.
To that end, my own limited company must be treated in the same way by the agency.
_daveR said:
dilbert said:
TBH I can't see why (pragmatically) they would need your passport if they're employng the services of a limited company registered in the UK.
This is the reason for my gripe with it. Do we think it's fair if I cross out everything except for name, nationality and dob?Mr POD said:
_daveR said:
dilbert said:
TBH I can't see why (pragmatically) they would need your passport if they're employng the services of a limited company registered in the UK.
This is the reason for my gripe with it. Do we think it's fair if I cross out everything except for name, nationality and dob?I can see why the sodding Nazis did what they did. That doesn't mean I have to like it.
I've been asked twice for copy of passport - on both occassions I have ignored the letters sent, and heard no more.
You said you have already started the contract? If so i doubt the agent will press too hard. Next time they chase you, just say you can't find your passport, then tell them you've ordered a new passport, etc, etc (pretend they're after money
)
You said you have already started the contract? If so i doubt the agent will press too hard. Next time they chase you, just say you can't find your passport, then tell them you've ordered a new passport, etc, etc (pretend they're after money
)Gassing Station | Business | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff