.png)
Not every applicant with something to hide is secretly running two jobs at once. Some are hiding just one: the one that ended badly.
Referencing is built to confirm what an applicant tells you, not to reconstruct the parts of their history they'd rather leave out. That gap shows up in two different ways: a bad exit that quietly disappears from the paperwork, and a pattern across several short jobs that never gets seen because each reference is checked on its own.
.png)
Both are more common than most teams assume. Around 1 in 3 applicants have at least one undeclared employment in their history: a role that never made the CV, and never went near the referencing process. Plenty are harmless enough. But when one does surface, we're increasingly seeing employers and screening providers apply extra due diligence before making a decision.
Someone dismissed for misconduct, let go during a disciplinary process, or asked to leave under a cloud has every reason to keep that employer off the paperwork. And under the traditional referencing process, doing so is remarkably easy.
Research backs up just how common this is. Studies on CV honesty have found that roughly 1 in 4 people admit to lying about employer references, with close to a fifth of that group saying they've used a fake reference service to do it. Cifas's 2025 workplace fraud research found a similar pattern from the other direction: almost a fifth of UK employees say they, or someone they know, have used a fraudulent reference house to cover an employment gap.
.png)
Some of these services are surprisingly professional. Paid "reference houses" will supply a plausible former employer complete with a company email domain, a website, and a polished, rehearsed response to standard referencing questions. Online communities have sprung up around the same need: one Reddit forum dedicated to swapping references between strangers has grown to more than 56,000 members.
It isn't only outright fabrication that slips through. Applicants who move between roles every few months, for reasons that would raise questions if seen together, rarely get caught by referencing, because references are checked one employer at a time, never as a full history.
Each individual reference can come back clean: the dates match, the title matches. What never gets asked is the more revealing question: why has this person left four jobs in eighteen months? A single-source process has no way of surfacing that pattern, because it was never designed to look at the whole picture at once.
Part of the problem sits with employers, not just applicants. Legal risk has pushed most organisations toward a strict "factual only" referencing policy: dates and job title, nothing more, specifically to avoid exposure to defamation or negligent misstatement claims. That means even an employer willing to be candid about a dismissal often can't, or won't, put it in writing.
Employment lawyers are already flagging the knock-on effect. Reporting in People Management has noted a rise in dismissals for falsified references, with one employment partner observing that "jobseekers are more willing to lie," partly because less rigorous reference checking has let so much of it go unnoticed.
Combine a policy of saying as little as possible with an applicant's freedom to choose which employers to name, and a bad chapter doesn't need to be forged. It just needs to be left out.
This is where verifying the full employment history, rather than checking one declared reference at a time, changes the picture. Because Konfir pulls employment data directly from Open Banking, Payroll, HMRC & Documents, gaps, overlaps and the employers an applicant chose not to name surface on their own, rather than relying on the applicant to volunteer them. Once it's visible, the decision about what it means is yours to make.
👉 See how Konfir verifies the full picture, not just the reference an applicant chooses to give you.
.png)