Verification Chronicles: The Ironic Interview
The Misleading “Manager”?
Did you hear the one about the candidate who claimed to have been a Shop Manager… while applying for a role with a background screening company? Neither had we… until it happened to us!
This edition of the Verification Chronicles takes a twist, focusing not on a case we encountered for a client, but one that hit closer to home. Yes, even a background screening company isn’t immune to attempts at deception.
Corey* applied for a manager role in one of our Operations teams. On paper, his CV looked great — he had management experience and ticked all the right boxes. He impressed us in the interview, too, so we extended an offer. But as our screening process got underway, the facade began to crack.
Unmasking “Claire’s Classics Ltd”
Corey claimed he had been a Shop Manager at Claire’s Classics Ltd* in the West Midlands for over a decade. He elaborated in his interview, detailing how he rose from Shop Assistant to Team Leader, and ultimately to Shop Manager. His narrative was convincing, but our team soon found several red flags:
- No Record in Companies House: In the UK, all limited companies must be registered with Companies House. Claire’s Classics Ltd was nowhere to be found.
- No Online Presence: This supposed business had no website, Google listing, or directory entry.
- Suspicious Contact Details: Corey provided an email address, “mt.clairesclassics@gmail.com”, as the contact for the company and for his character referee, Mick Thomson*. While small businesses occasionally use free email services such as Gmail, this stood out as unusual.
Mick’s response to our reference request, signed off as “MD, Claire’s Classics Ltd,” only deepened our suspicions. Furthermore, Mick Thomson, who claimed to be the Managing Director, was not listed as a director for any company in Companies House. This discrepancy further reinforced our suspicions.
Digging Deeper
Our team used Google Maps to investigate the address Corey had listed for the business, which he claimed operated for over a decade. This raised an important question: if the shop had been there for more than ten years, how could neighbouring businesses have no recollection of it? This lack of awareness was highly suspicious. The location was in a bustling commercial area, but no sign of Claire’s Classics Ltd could be found. When we reached out to neighbouring businesses, none had heard of such a shop.
When asked for further details, Corey stuck to his story, offering no additional information to substantiate his claims. Undeterred, we widened our investigation.
Connecting the Dots
Corey’s most recent employer, a reputable tech company, verified his tenure and job title, confirming he had passed their background check. However, the shop in question was one of his earlier employers, and their screening provider relied solely on the contact details Corey supplied for Claire’s Classics Ltd. This included the fabricated reference from Mick, which was accepted without further verification. This case highlights how critical it is for employers to understand the methodology of their screening providers and ensure thorough checks are conducted.
By this stage, it was clear Corey’s story didn’t hold up. The job offer was withdrawn, and Corey’s reaction—a lack of surprise or disappointment—only confirmed our suspicions.
Lessons Learned
This case underscores the importance of thorough and independent verification during the hiring process. As a background screening company, we understand the critical role checks and balances play in protecting organisations from potentially disastrous hires. In our line of work, employees often access sensitive data, making integrity and honesty non-negotiable.
Corey’s story also highlights a common pitfall: relying solely on candidate-supplied referees and contact details. Automated reference-checking tools can be efficient, but they often rely on candidate-supplied contact details, which can easily be fabricated. This underscores the importance of understanding a screening provider’s methodology to ensure that employment references are truly independent and verifiable. Employers must prioritise due diligence over convenience.
Fraud in hiring is, unfortunately, not new. As past stories like The Counterfeit Credential and The Double Degree Deceiver have shown, deceit is part of the human condition. Corey’s tale is another reminder of why robust screening processes are essential. Stay tuned for more insights in future editions of the Verification Chronicles.
*Names and details have been changed for confidentiality.