House keys beside a closed linen folder and pen on an oak table in a residential entryway.

The new house manager starts on Monday. The agency has sent references, the interviews went well, and someone is preparing the keys, alarm instructions and family calendar. Before that handover, the person authorizing it should be able to say what was checked, what remains unverified and why the access being granted is appropriate.

A recommendation from another family can help establish a candidate’s experience. It does not tell you which records were searched, whether the references were independently contacted or whether the previous role carried the same responsibilities. The hiring decision needs a record that answers those questions without turning the household into an investigation service.

Define the access before ordering the checks

Write the role down in terms of what the person will be able to do. A house manager might authorize contractors, hold alarm administration rights and see travel plans. A driver might need an itinerary without needing the full family calendar. A nanny’s responsibilities may involve unsupervised care as well as access to the home. Those differences should determine the questions asked before hiring.

The UK’s National Protective Security Authority guidance recommends screening proportionate to the risks of the role and applies its approach to permanent, temporary and contract workers, including people moving between roles. For a household, the useful starting point is a written description of duties and access, rather than a standard screening package selected before anyone has defined the job.

Name the person responsible for commissioning the checks and the person who will decide whether the results support the appointment. They may be the same executive, but neither responsibility should be left to whoever happens to be arranging the start date. A specialist should conduct the background investigation; the family’s responsibility is to specify what it needs to know and make the resulting access decision.

Verify identity and the employment account

Establish that the person being checked is the person being hired. NPSA’s guidance emphasizes verifying identity and the authenticity of identity documents. Ask the screening specialist how that verification will be performed, rather than accepting an emailed document as sufficient evidence on its own.

Build an employment and residence history that gives the specialist enough information to scope lawful checks. A candidate who has worked in several countries needs a plan that accounts for those countries, not an assumption that a search in the current country covers the earlier years. Collect the information needed for the agreed purpose, with the appropriate notices and safeguards.

For relevant previous positions, seek confirmation of dates, responsibilities and the working relationship. Ask about reasons for leaving where it is lawful and appropriate to do so. Record discrepancies and give the candidate an opportunity to explain them before drawing conclusions. A gap in the account is a question to resolve, not a finding of dishonesty.

Verify qualifications that the role depends on. For a driver, for example, ask the specialist to identify the applicable license and driving-record checks. For a care role, establish which qualifications and safeguarding checks the duties require in the jurisdiction where the work will occur. A prestigious former employer does not replace evidence that the candidate meets those requirements.

Have reference conversations that test the role

A reference letter leaves little opportunity to distinguish direct knowledge from a general endorsement. We recommend conversations with people who supervised the candidate’s relevant work, using contact details independently verified where possible. A call to a number supplied by the candidate confirms little about the referee’s identity unless someone has checked whose number it is.

Keep the questions tied to the work. For a house manager, ask what authority the candidate held over contractors and spending, how exceptions were handled and whether problems were reported promptly. For someone responsible for children, ask about the duties the referee directly observed and how the candidate followed agreed instructions. Avoid inviting speculation about private matters unrelated to the role.

Record who spoke, their relationship to the candidate, the period they knew the person’s work and the substance of relevant answers. A referee who can confirm employment dates but cannot discuss performance has supplied a limited reference, not necessarily a negative one. If an employer’s policy prevents a fuller discussion, document that limitation and decide what other evidence is needed.

Choose the number and type of references to cover the responsibilities and relevant history. A fixed quota can produce several thin endorsements while leaving the most important period unchecked.

Understand what a criminal check can establish

Request the checks that are lawful and relevant to the work, with the specialist and employment counsel identifying the applicable rules. The broadest available search is not automatically the appropriate one, particularly where the law restricts access to criminal information or its use in hiring.

For the DBS system used in England and Wales, eligibility for higher-level checks depends on the role and the legal entitlement to request them. The Disclosure and Barring Service guidance also explains that DBS cannot access criminal records held overseas. Some overseas records appear on the Police National Computer, but a DBS check may still provide an incomplete picture of someone who has lived abroad.

Ask the specialist to identify the jurisdictions covered, the records available and any material periods that could not be checked. Distinguish a completed search with no relevant finding from a search that could not be performed. Neither result should be described as a worldwide clearance or a guarantee of future conduct.

The procedure for using a report matters as much as obtaining it. In the US, an employer obtaining an employment background report from a company that compiles background information must follow the Fair Credit Reporting Act’s notice and authorization requirements. FTC and EEOC guidance describes a written, stand-alone notice and written permission before the check. It also sets out steps before and after an adverse employment decision based on the report, including providing the report and a summary of rights before the decision is taken.

Have counsel determine the requirements for the actual employment arrangement and location, including applicable state or local restrictions. Do not turn a screening company’s flag into an automatic rejection without understanding the underlying information, its relevance and the process the candidate is entitled to receive.

Ask an agency what its assurance includes

If an agency says a candidate has been vetted, ask for the scope, completion date and limitations of that work. Establish who verified identity, which employment periods were confirmed and whether the screening relates to the duties the family is assigning. The answer should identify the candidate and the checks completed, not merely describe the agency’s general policy.

The family does not need unrestricted access to every underlying document to require useful assurance. Agree what evidence of completion and unresolved limitations the agency can lawfully provide, who may receive it and who owns the final hiring decision. If that evidence is insufficient for the access proposed, resolve the gap before releasing the access.

Include temporary cover and substitutions in the arrangement. Require the agency to identify a replacement in advance and confirm that the agreed checks are complete before the replacement assumes the role. A well-documented original placement should not become permission for an unknown substitute to receive the same keys and information.

Put the working boundaries in writing

Have employment counsel prepare or review the agreement for the relevant jurisdiction. The security provisions should describe the responsibilities in language the employee can use, rather than relying on a broad promise of discretion.

Specify which family information may be used for the job and how it may be shared. Address photographs inside the home, travel information, documents received in messages and the use of personal accounts or devices for household work. Explain who can authorize an exception and where to report a lost device, mistaken disclosure or unusual request.

Confidentiality provisions should preserve lawful reporting, safeguarding and other protected disclosures. Staff need a route to raise a concern, including one that does not run through the person the concern is about. An agreement intended to protect family privacy should not discourage someone from reporting a safety issue.

Write down what happens when the role ends: return of keys and devices, removal of account access, treatment of work-related information and responsibility for confirming completion. Avoid promises to erase all records where legal retention duties may apply. The agreement and the departure procedure should be designed together so that the obligations can be carried out.

Authorize the handover, not only the hire

Keep the screening decision separate from the access handover. Before keys, codes or accounts are issued, the responsible executive should be able to confirm:

  • The role and its access requirements are documented, and the candidate’s identity has been verified.
  • The agreed checks are complete, with any gaps or discrepancies recorded and addressed through the appropriate process.
  • The agreement is signed, and the employee has received practical instructions on handling information and reporting concerns.
  • The access being issued matches the role, with someone named to withdraw it when the arrangement changes.

Do not let a busy household’s start date quietly become acceptance of an unfinished check. If a limited, supervised start is being considered, establish first whether it is lawful for that role. Record the permitted duties, what access remains withheld and who will supervise. Where required safeguarding checks or other legal prerequisites remain outstanding, a household exception cannot substitute for them.

Protect the candidate’s information as carefully as the family’s. Restrict detailed reports to people who need them for the decision, and give operational staff the access instructions they need rather than the underlying personal history. Set retention and disposal arrangements with counsel and the screening provider instead of allowing reports to accumulate in household email accounts.

Revisit the decision when the work changes

A driver who begins supervising contractors has acquired a different responsibility. A nanny who starts accompanying children across borders may need a review of the arrangement beyond the checks used for work at one residence. Before duties expand, reassess whether the original verification, written terms and permissions remain appropriate, and commission additional lawful checks where needed.

At the next household hire, ask for a single decision record: the role, the agreed checks, their outcome and limitations, the decision-maker and the access authorized. Keep sensitive supporting records separately. That gives the family a practical answer to what was verified before the keys changed hands, and gives the person managing the household a basis for deciding what must happen before more access is granted.

Sources