Waltham Forest News RSS Feed


WALTHAM FOREST: Council 'best on staff screening'


WALTHAM Forest council is removing recruiting agencies from its 'preferred suppliers' list for repeatedly putting forward staff who fail screening.

Speaking at the launch of Protecting Employers from Insider Threats (PREFIT) Rachael Tiffen, chief internal auditor and anti-fraud officer for the council, said: “The biggest number of those who fail our screening are agency staff.”

She added: “I decided that it wasn’t good enough for us to just let these individuals slip through the net.

“Come last year, of the 833 people we vetted there was only a three pre cent failure rate.”

And Waltham Forest council is also carrying out more stringent checks than many other local authorities, according to cabinet member for finance and resources Cllr John Macklin.

He said: “The Council’s vetting process is extremely thorough and we are in fact viewed as being at the forefront of public sector vetting by other councils.

“Waltham Forest is perhaps the only local authority in the country to vet all of its workers – including agency staff – and we are extremely proud of this.

“Our aim is to make sure that everyone who works for the council, and therefore Waltham Forest’s 225,000 residents, is deserving of our trust and employment.”

This includes checks on identification, where candidates live, eligibility to work in the UK, and work and qualifications history.

From January to December last year, a total number of 833 staff were vetted, including agency and permanent staff.

Of these, a total of 25, or three per cent, were classified as a 'problem'.

A total of six people had 'improper benefit claim issues', eight had no right to work in the UK, two had unspent convictions, six had false employment histories and three had housing fraud issues.


Your Say Your Guardian

Techno2, Walthamstow says...
10:02am Tue 7 Jul 09

I don't know what they are screening for. The senior ranks of the council seem to be far too populated with people who are personally greedy, incompetant, time serving, politically biased, dishonest, willing to tolerate corrupttion and generally put the public interest last on their list of priorities over staying on the New Labour gravy train.

Cllr John Macklin has promise, but he is being naive if he thinks there is any comfort to the people in this borough by the council's spinning of this line while the culpable are still there. When we see some meaningful sackings and arrests for corruption people will believe he really means to get somewhere on our behalf and he is ready to be the Council Leader.

walthamforester, says...
11:05am Tue 7 Jul 09

Hear hear Techno2

mdj, e10 says...
2:00pm Tue 7 Jul 09

Vetting doesn't seem to have prevented the Arts and Culture department being headed by someone whose only qualification for the post is that he was formerly a Labour Leader of the Council -or is that a case of positive vetting, perhaps? What vetting appointed a libraries manager with no experience or qualifications in librarianship or library management, who was fast-tracked four grades to the post without any other applicant being interviewed? Who burned possibly 250,000 library books? This special screening might explain why the Central Library was allowed to leak in a dozen places for over a year, despite just having been expensively refurbished. Was it vetting that caused the Borough's only employee with a world-wide reputation, the Keeper of the William Morris Gallery, to be bullied out of his job by the two officials just mentioned, whereupon he was awarded the MBE by better judges of his merits? What sort of screening gave us a manager of parking services who turns down appeals against penalty notices issued under signage he knows to be legally invalid? Or a head of Young Peoples' services who didn't inform the Charity Commission the Council was planning to build on land that didn't belong to it, except as charitable trustees of open space? Who screened theCabinet Member for Community Safety who misinformed the police for four years that a valid Alcohol Exclusion Zone was in force in Leytonstone? What selection procedure made him also Chair of the Primary Care Trust, making him a walking conflict of interest? Or whoever valued four acres of open space by the A406 as having no monetary value, so it could be given away for use as a cemetery (value £500 M/2)? Truly we are well served by the rigorous procedures that have put these wise heads in charge of our affairs.

Fresh Gravee, Snaresbrook says...
3:58pm Tue 7 Jul 09

This explains an awful lot.

Just listen to the type of people who answer the phone.

Walthamster, Walthamstow says...
4:28pm Tue 7 Jul 09

I can hardly believe they've got the cheek to boast about screening out these very small fry, while ignoring the sheer incompetence (and worse) at the top.

Anyone who has dealings with Waltham Forest council knows what Techno2 and MDJ say is absolutely true.

Can we get some answers, please, to the questions raised by MDJ?

Comments are closed on this article.


Local Advertisers

Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »