what percentage would a candidate normally have to score to be deemed appointable?

[redundant]

I am going through my scoring which is riddled with discrepancies, they have well and truly stitched me up. I have been scored out of 10 on various criteria, and then this has been expressed as a percentage. I am wondering what recruitment bods would normally think is the minimum score/precentage for a candidate to be appointable? thank you.

I would ask for evidence on how they based their scoring, have they given this?

Your bases for Appeal shoud be that you believe you should have scored higher on each criteria and that they need to explain why you have not and provide Objective evidence for this (reviews, targets etc)

Depending upon their response you can make the deciaion on whether you wish to take this further.

They have carried out the scoring, therefore I would regard the burden of proof to be on them as to how this has been done.

Was the process clearly explained to you during the consultation process and have the adhered to their policies and procedures, if not then the process was flawed and therefore you have come back on thid.

Do you have membership of a proffessional body, if so ring them they may have a legal department who can advise.

We mark out of 5, and normally use 50% overall, but without too many "1"s and "2"s.

We mark out of 5 applying the following criteria:

1- Did not meet criteria
2- Partially met criteria
3- Met criteria (Satisfactory response)
4- Met criteria (Good response)
5- Exceeded critera (Excellent response)

A candidate has to score at least a 3 for every question to be deemed appointable

I am guessing from your name that you have been made redundant? If you have had to compete with other people for a reduced number of posts, does it matter what percentage score would normally be deemed appointable? What I mean is that if there's only one job, someone scores an acceptable 65% but someone else scores 80% then the person with 80% will be appointed even through 65% would normally lead to appointment.

If you think that they have scored you incorrectly, then that, of course, is a whole other issue.

thanks everyone, sorry for late reply.

annh - I wasn't appointed, but I was the only person applying for two of the posts - they will now recruit externally. So yes, I think it matters in that they have a duty to appoint if I am suitable, and I am interpreting that to mean I don't have to be the best candidate they could possibly find (although I think I am pretty good!)

Thanks for all your other responses. I score just over 50%, but I will have to ask them to justify why some of the individual scores were so low. It is purely scored on the interview - there were no tests, and the application form (which gives examples which tick every box) and my employment history to date with them (which is exemplary) has no bearing on the scoring.

I am going to appeal on Monday so will see what happens. Thanks again, your responses have been really really helpful.