Application for a Private Security licence query

boardsuser1

Last month I applied to the private security Authority for a licence to work in the sector.

Completed the vetting application and heard nothing for a month until today.

This is the interesting bit.

A detective Garda called to my door and says are you Mr KC, I am I said.

He asked have i a vetting application pending and did I live at such and such (a previous address) in Cork city, again I confirmed this.

My question is why would the gardai be doing this if vetting is carried out in Tipperary.

I contacted the PSA and they said this is the first time they have ever heard of this.

I've been vetted before without such issues.

I should add that less than 2 miles away is another individual with an identical name to me but the date of birth is different by some 3 years.

I provided my date of birth with the vetting application so cannot understand why the detective called to my house.

He was a genuine detective Garda as I have dealt with him on a previous occasion in the local station.

Little CuChulainn

He called to your house to make sure you weren't the same person using a dodgy date of birth.

fred funk }{

Sounds like they were doing exactly as they should be doing.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

JillyQ

PSA are just doing there job. Would be more worried if they weren't doing there job properly.

boardsuser1

JillyQ wrote: »

PSA are just doing there job. Would be more worried if they weren't doing there job properly.

The PSA never heard of this before. It was the Gardai who called.

I was vetted for another organisation only 6 months ago and this never happened.

That was with a state owned company dealing with minors and vulnerable adults.

boardsuser1

Fred Swanson wrote: »

I have had this happen when I applied for Garda vetting. Nothing to worry about.

Thanks Fred.

The Garda didn't meet with me in person as I was out of the house but I rang him and divulged my details over the phone. He appeared satisfied with who I was.

boardsuser1

The PSA refused my application, they now won't refund my money, how corrupt is the system at all.

Peregrinus

What makes you think the system is corrupt?

Panjandrums

This post has been deleted.

boardsuser1

Panjandrums wrote: »

After reading your previous posts, it's probably best for yourself that you aren't in the sector. In the 9 months you've been waiting I'm sure you've another job going?

I won't be going back to work a while yet I'd say.

In the previous months I did work.

I was in the sector before and always had a desire to one day go back.

boardsuser1

Peregrinus wrote: »

What makes you think the system is corrupt?

They proposed to refuse my application based on (incorrect) information received. I had 14 days in which to respond. I responded immediately and the 14 days still haven't expired. I just wanted my money back at this stage.

Even my course director is at a loss as to how people with 50,60,80 previous can get a licence and I (with 3) can't

That's why I called it corrupt.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Peregrinus

Not getting the outcome you want is not evidence of corruption.

There'd be corruption if someone was paying them to refuse you clearance, or if they were demanding a bribe from you in order to give you clearance, or something of the kind.

You don't say what reason is given for the refusal of your application (and, in a public forum like this, it might not be wise to give that kind of information, even anonymously, so I am not suggesting that you should tell us).

The PSA has a twenty-page document on their website which sets out the things they look at when making a "fit and proper" assessment, so there's a whole range of issues that could be affecting this decision. There is a procedure for appealing the decisions of the PSA; they should have told you about it when notifying you of their refusal. If you've been refused on the "fit and proper" grounds and you feel that, on a correct application of their own guidelines, you should qualify as a fit and proper person, it may be worth your while to appeal.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

boardsuser1

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not getting the outcome you want is not evidence of corruption.

There'd be corruption if someone was paying them to refuse you clearance, or if they were demanding a bribe from you in order to give you clearance, or something of the kind.

You don't say what reason is given for the refusal of your application (and, in a public forum like this, it might not be wise to give that kind of information, even anonymously, so I am not suggesting that you should tell us).

The PSA has a twenty-page document on their website which sets out the things they look at when making a "fit and proper" assessment, so there's a whole range of issues that could be affecting this decision. There is a procedure for appealing the decisions of the PSA; they should have told you about it when notifying you of their refusal. If you've been refused on the "fit and proper" grounds and you feel that, on a correct application of their own guidelines, you should qualify as a fit and proper person, it may be worth your while to appeal.

Long story short i don't appear to qualify under the fit and proper standards, i'm about 1 year out from that,was unaware at the time of application.

I just want the money refunded at this stage. i made the representations i was told i was permitted to make under the private security acts, after making those they reply that they are refusing my application even though i was still within the 14 days.

€220 is an awful hit to take if you have no end result.

The only reason i made representations is because the vetting disclosure had an error in it, i provided evidence to back that up and they omitted that piece from the refusal letter.

boardsuser1

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

They proposed to refuse me on the 10/08/2017.

I had 14 days from that date to make representations which i did on the 14/08/2017.

They refused me on 16/08/2017 even though i said yesterday (17th)when i received the letter just refund me, even as i type this i am still within the 14 days.

Peregrinus

You had 14 days to make representations, but once you have made the representations they don't have to sit around for the balance of the 14 days; they can proceed to consider your representations and make a decision. They probably work on the assumption that people who make their representations earlier rather than later want a decision earlier rather than later.

The fee is unfortunate, but it's an application fee; it represents the cost of processing, investigating and considering your application, and that cost doesn't depend on whether the application is successful or not.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

boardsuser1

Peregrinus wrote: »

You had 14 days to make representations, but once you have made the representations they don't have to sit around for the balance of the 14 days; they can proceed to consider your representations and make a decision. They probably work on the assumption that people who make their representations earlier rather than later want a decision earlier rather than later.

The fee is unfortunate, but it's an application fee; it represents the cost of processing, investigating and considering your application, and that cost doesn't depend on whether the application is successful or not.

If i lose the fee then an extra €25 to appeal won't kill me i guess. Had i been successful then that money would have been for the licence.

Peregrinus

€25 seems modest enough for the appeal, but you might still be throwing good money after bad if, as you say in post #16, you don't appear to qualify under the fit and proper standards. The appeal is probably not going to succeed. It's a pain, but you might to better to see if you can position yourself so that you do meet the standards and then put in a fresh application. You say that you're "about 1 year out"; does that mean that if you wait for a while some historic issues will become old enough that they don't matter any more? If so, that might be your best prospect.

boardsuser1

Peregrinus wrote: »

€25 seems modest enough for the appeal, but you might still be throwing good money after bad if, as you say in post #16, you don't appear to qualify under the fit and proper standards. The appeal is probably not going to succeed. It's a pain, but you might to better to see if you can position yourself so that you do meet the standards and then put in a fresh application. You say that you're "about 1 year out"; does that mean that if you wait for a while some historic issues will become old enough that they don't matter any more? If so, that might be your best prospect.

My historical issues are recorded as 2010,11,12.

Occurred in 2006,2008,2009.

The only reason i am about 1 year out is under their fit and proper standards guidelines, in the case of multiple offences for 3 and under it adds 1 year to the consideration time.

I even had a formal offer of employment if successful, the employer wrote to the PSA directly to confirm this.

Even if they took the date of offence,rather than conviction into account that would get me over the line.

The reason the conviction date took so long was delays on the side of the state.

I am now effectively being penalised twice.

Had the Garda Administrative filter been used, which in this case it cannot be, that would have left only the 2012 case.

In relation to trying to get the money back, it's a hardship case more than anything else.

i have tried my best and beyond to get this over the line.

Even the social welfare acknowledged they can't fault my efforts.

I was offered another job recently in my main profession, as per my username, and sure enough my past came back to haunt me there as well.

Pity this isn't the UK who have legislation in place to cover all of this since 1974.

Even with the legislation introduced here it isn't on par with the rest of europe.

The fact our laws are 43 years behind the UK is bad enough :rolleyes:

boardsuser1

Fred Swanson wrote: »

Surely you have told the PSA that the information is incorrect?

I think they cover themselves by saying it is a processing fee.

Yeah I can't corrected them on it.

I think this is their way of saying "fcuk you" for correcting them.