A tiny bit suspicious of nanny references

[SlicedMelon]

So we have offered a lovely nanny the role and she has provided two references, first name with phone number. I’ve spoken to one who sounded honestly a bit nervous and referenced their child’s ages as exactly the “starting age” of the children in the role as described in her CV (eg said, my two daughters, 5 months and 2 years old rather than 5 and 7 which would be how old they are now - I just feel like a genuine parent would have described children as 5 and 7 and then said something like she started when youngest was a few months old or something like that rather than the exact starting ages?).

I’ve followed up and asked for his full name and wife’s full name and his work email, which he provided, but he doesn’t come up on LinkedIn / neither does company, although there is a website. Is there any other step I could reasonably do to verify this role existed?

I really like her but also don’t want to be relaxed about this considering my spidey senses are going off a bit… could I ask for payslips or something?

Some evidence you are who you say you are is reasonable to expect- we are getting unduly sidetracked here.

There is no way I would accept references from what they've said to the OP here anyway but this combined with only Gmail/Yahoo accounts and searches not turning up anymore information on them anywhere in the public domain under the name I was given. No way.

This.

Genius! @SlicedMelon

You’re wrong. Many people who work in certain roles in the police/government, including myself, aren’t allowed to give out their work address, as a) it’s a security risk having external emails being sent in to computers which hold sensitive information and b) it means the name of an employee has effectively been leaked.

They are rightly very strict about it, there is no way I’d compromise my job by giving my work email out.

You think someone giving false information and getting her spouse to lie, to gain unsupervised access to your children is cute?!?!

There is enough information here for the OP to be suspicious she is not speaking to who the nanny has represented these people are. I wouldn't bother taking this forward but the OP is right to be suspicious

And people should be aware it is very likely your work email is already on the public domain on commercial and other publicly accessible databases. Very naive to think otherwise.

Your servers will have firewalls and if your job is this sensitive presumably you hace had cyber security training about opening suspicious links. In such a sensitive job the mere act of sending and email to you will not shut the place down. Goodness. But we digress.

Trust your gut.
My friend hired a new nanny after an extensive chat with her previous employer and a written reference from the one before that.
Things started to go a bit wrong a couple of weeks in. She "forgot to collect the youngest" from nursery, and the school had to phone her. She was late for the other 2 multiple times and they said she smelled funny. Then she pranged the car, but didn't mention it. Little jobs weren't being done properly. Meals for the kids were mostly take away or ready meals.
Turns out she was a raging alcoholic who had been dropping the kids off and drinking herself into a stupor until she passed out, then getting up and driving to collect them. Both the references were fake.

She may be really good and just starting out. It may be the old conundrum- you can't get a job without experience, but you can't get experience without getting the job. Anyway, genuine references are often useless-witness the number of nurses, scout masters, and nannies getting outed for all sorts of nefarious doings. If you like her give a job with a probation period.

@SlicedMelon Not sure if this has been suggested already, but I work recruiting in schools.
This safeguarding guidance includes Safer Recruitment, something that is very necessary to keep children safe. Guidance includes media checks etc. This also includes seeking references prior to interview so that any gaps in employment dates and other queries can be explored with the candidate.

It won't all be relevant to your situation but will provide you with objective, well researched information.
See page 57.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/686b94eefe1a249e937cbd2d/Keepingchildrensafeineducation2025.pdf

Agreed. We do have firewalls and a lot of security training. But if a member of my team gave out their work email address when it’s clearly against policy, I would take a very dim view of it. If you’ve obtained a high-level security clearance to get the job in the first place, it’s quite dim to compromise yourself over a nanny reference!

But I also agree we’re digressing, so I’ll shut up now.

I didn’t say OP wasn’t right to be suspicious, but neither would l go to these lengths to verify with this many red flags. I’d just move on to the next candidate.

And civil service email addresses, although classed as personal info under the data protection act, were subject to departmental restriction. Policy dictated that they could only be disclosed for legitimate work related purposes - mainly internal communications, and when authorised, to third parties for work-related duties. Disclosing for a reference for someone employed privately wouldn’t fall under any of these conditions.

OP how do you know it’s her husband you were talking to? Did you see his face when he was on his phone talking to you? I’m confused. Could you ask for a third reference? Can I ask what made you suspicious in the first place, was it the references being inconsistent or did you have doubts before that? Can’t you check her on childcare.co.uk or see if she’s on Bubble, you’ll see reviews there.

To be honest l’m a bit confused as to why OP has offered the nanny the job before checking the references. I realise that with nanny positions it’s more of a two way street - the nanny has to be comfortable with the employer to be a good fit, but given the nature of the work, why would you make a job offer before checking the references ?

I'm glad you've found out that she is a liar and untrustworthy. A useful lesson that the best con artists don't look like evil swindlers.

I'd have laughed and sent her packing if she'd given me first name and phone number as a reference anyway. It's a huge red flag.

This is how people get conned. They WANT to believe.

Ive just seen one of the references was the nanny's husband! Unbelievable she didn't think this would ever come out. However- maybe he is also her former employer and this is the issue!!!!!!!!

Wow. Have you withdrawn the offer and told her why?

Its not unusual to offer subject to satisfactory references.

The internal emails of civil servants and the like are very unlikely to be findable in this way. The protection of it is what our tax ££ goes towards.

Which is why l asked, because that’s not what OP said, and having dealt with a few agencies most recommend that you ask for at least one reference to check ahead of interview.

What does she do, if she works in education she could be on the level, I'm a teacher and our work email was offline for 3 weeks over the summer whilst we had a major systems re-build.

But is odd the line went dead just when you said about ages, to me that would indicate the person needed to think about that to get their numbers right.

Go with your gut, two references have played out as odd - that would be a coincidence too many for me.

Why does she have to show you her P60, that's none of your business, I've never heard of been asked for a P60 at interview, it only shows how much you've earned and tax and ni paid, she might have been self employed previously not on paye. It won't tell you she has a criminal record!!

They are findable. Sorry.

If you have a feeling something off , forget it ..
Find someone else OP ..

Have you looked into a registered childminder rather than a nanny? (who given the update you’d have to be bonkers to employ).
We’ve used a mixture of childminders and nurseries for our children and the one who had a childminder was so happy and settled pretty much from the start, they were youngest as in a group of 3 and had a great time, day trips, baking and so many lovely memories.
They are still close to their childminder and see the other children that attended at school despite being in different year groups they all still greet each other etc

Wow woke up go such a lot of comments. I’m not sure where anyone got the idea that we are still going to employ her from. Me being on the fence about that was from before I confirmed that her references are fake.

I said that I’m (USUALLY obviously!) a great judge of character and she doesn’t seem dodgy at all and that her socials make her seem very normal! And her husband genuinely does have a sweet face (and was nervous on the phone which was a giveaway to me).

I don’t think they’re necessarily horrible people, perhaps just desperate for her to get a job, and it’s possible to find someone has good energy, is kind, funny and warm (and thus be fond of them) but still have a red line on honesty when deciding for a candidate for childcare for an infant. Humans are complex after all.

Thanks for the genuinely helpful advice as I figured this out. To the kind and supportive women who thought it appropriate and useful to call me an idiot, perhaps some self reflection about what value you’re adding to the mumsnet paid childcare topic.