THOUSANDS of people have been subjected to illegal background checks when they applied for jobs that did not require vetting, according to a report on the Criminal Records Bureau.

As demand for checks from the bureau grows, there are increasing concerns that employers are misusing the system.

Job applicants have been subjected to scrutiny when they applied to be refuse workers, dog wardens, car park attendants and train drivers. On one occasion checks were sought on people applying to take part in a television game show.

Disclosure of information should occur only when people are applying for jobs that involve working with children and vulnerable adults or certain financial and security- related occupations.

There are now 14,750 organisations that have the right to ask the bureau to check out a prospective employee.

The bureau, which has admitted incorrectly labelling almost 3,000 people as criminals because of vetting errors, admitted yesterday that it was concerned about “unmanageable demand”.

The drive for checks was fuelled by the controversy over the Soham murders, carried out by the school caretaker Ian Huntley, and employers’ concerns about litigation if they employed an offender.

But many checks are being sought in direct contravention of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (1974), which is designed to prevent discrimination against people with minor criminal records from many years ago.

Nacro, the crime reduction charity, said that three quarters of the 20,000 calls to its helpline were about problems with criminal record checks. In its report on the disclosure system, Nacro said: “Some employers routinely misuse their access to the service by running checks on posts that are not excepted from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and are thus not eligible for checking.

“This confirms the helpline’s experience — that many checks are illegal and people are being refused employment or suspended and dismissed as a result of them.”

Nacro said that 89 per cent of the checks requested of the bureau in 2004 were at the enhanced level, which discloses police intelligence as well as details of spent and unspent convictions.

Paul Cavadino, the chief executive of Nacro, said: “There are certain jobs for which enhanced and standard checks are necessary to protect vulnerable adults and children. But there are many other jobs where it is not legal for employers and the CRB to carry out checks.”

The bureau has acknowledged Nacro’s criticism and warned organisations that apply for checks that they could be de-registered if they apply for illegal checks.

Vince Gaskell, chief executive of the CRB, also said he “deeply regretted” the distress caused to people wrongly labelled as criminals because of errors by the bureau and hinted that Emma Budd, 19, from Maesteg, South Wales, might be considered for compensation after she was rejection for two jobs teaching disabled people because she was wrongly said by the bureau to have two convictions for theft.

Mr Gaskell told GMTV: “We do apologise to these people — that usually comes when we have actually sorted out the situation that is presented to us. If we have not done that in Emma’s case, then let me take this opportunity to do so now and apologise directly to her.”

Mr Gaskell said that the bureau’s code of practice made clear to employers that they should not take “precipitous action” until a dispute is resolved.

Explore Career

• Graduate

• Senior Executive

• Recruiter Forum

• Top 100 Graduate Employers

• Top 50 Women

• Best 100 Companies

• Careers in

Times Recommends

• Inspirational leadership
• How to get a new job
• The reluctant CEO