DV Clearance - Automated 'NO'

[Mephisto]

Apologies as I know clearance has been done to death however I just wanted to query the legalities (if applicable) of the following.

Say you apply for many jobs through jobswerve and get to know the nature of how the process works i.e. apply for a number of roles that have an automated reply from the recruiter saying, 'Thank you for applying blah blah... will be in touch if application deemed appropriate...etc'.

Now say that same automated reply that you are so used to comes in as usual however upon reading it there's a stark difference and based on selecting the 'no current clearance, but willing to undergo...' option when submitting the application, the following appears:

"Thank you for your application unfortunately on this occasion the client is only able to consider consultants that hold DV security clearance due to the nature and urgency of the requirement.

I will keep you posted if we have any other suitable requirements.

Regards"

Now my mail server is by no means the quickest but this dropped in seconds after I clicked 'Apply' and I feel a tad miffed to be honest. Am I just being a bit soft because it feels like poor form or is there a genuine case for grievance here?

I certainly don't suddenly expect to be considered for the role however aren't we supposed to query things like this if/when they pop up?

[TheFaQQer]

It's worth highlighting it to the Cabinet Office that this is in breach of their guidelines.

Screenshot / print to PDF the advert. Then send them the advert, with the automated email and an explanation.

Their email address is [email protected]

Not sure if you will get anywhere with it, but they are meant to be looking into things like this. Unless the role was a short-term one, then they aren't meant to work this way.

[northernladuk]

It's worth highlighting it to the Cabinet Office that this is in breach of their guidelines.

Screenshot / print to PDF the advert. Then send them the advert, with the automated email and an explanation.

Their email address is [email protected]

Not sure if you will get anywhere with it, but they are meant to be looking into things like this. Unless the role was a short-term one, then they aren't meant to work this way.

Am sure Mal will be along any moment to clear this up but I thought the beef with the adverts that need highlighting to the cabinet office are the ones where the advert is discriminatory and says only existing SC/DV people considered for the role.

From what I read here it never said that but falls back on the timescales issue which isn't disciminator in a large majority of cases. If the role starts in a weeks time and it takes 6 months to get DV clearance then common sense dictates your application isn't going to work, particularly in DV where you can't do squat. In SC at least there is a chance you can be escorted around to some extent even though you can't do much.

Yes I know it is annoying when they do this and they will do it everytime so keeping the closed shop tightly closed and some people will abuse it but that's just the way it is sometimes.

Again I am sure Mal will agree with FaQQer saying log it and report it but personally I can't see what the point of reporting arguable cases is except to cover valid cases with heaps of invalid ones but then I didn't vote either so can't complain.

[malvolio]

Am sure Mal will be along any moment to clear this up but I thought the beef with the adverts that need highlighting to the cabinet office are the ones where the advert is discriminatory and says only existing SC/DV people considered for the role.

From what I read here it never said that but falls back on the timescales issue which isn't disciminator in a large majority of cases. If the role starts in a weeks time and it takes 6 months to get DV clearance then common sense dictates your application isn't going to work, particularly in DV where you can't do squat. In SC at least there is a chance you can be escorted around to some extent even though you can't do much.

Yes I know it is annoying when they do this and they will do it everytime so keeping the closed shop tightly closed and some people will abuse it but that's just the way it is sometimes.

Again I am sure Mal will agree with FaQQer saying log it and report it but personally I can't see what the point of reporting arguable cases is except to cover valid cases with heaps of invalid ones but then I didn't vote either so can't complain.

Report it. The more cases the better. There is a lot of work going on behind the scenes here which I can't talk about (dur... ), but this is far from being a dead issue with HMG.

The timescale only applies for a very small number of cases, and if you want to be really picky DV clearance lapses immediately you leave the role you held it for. You can be allowed to work if the hirer considers you are capable of getting the required clearance and supervision can be provided until it comes through - otherwise how would GCHQ ever recruit anyone?

[Mephisto]

Rather helpful reply from jobswerve:
"Hi,

Your e-mail has come through to JobServe who are the job posting board and not
the recruiter for this role.

The below rejection email would be from the recruiter directly, unfortunately
you would need to contact them for more information"

You learn something new every day

Will await our country's finest defenders response...