Unsuccessful Candidates
The group most often omitted from the record of processing, held the longest without a decision, and most likely to ask what you hold.
UNSUCCESSFUL CANDIDATE RECORD
What is held, where, and until when
- ApplicationCV, form, covering letterIn the tracking system, and in the panel's email
- AssessmentScores, notes, panel commentsThe part candidates ask for and panels forget exists
- Interview notesHandwritten or typedDiscoverable. Write them as though they will be read
- CorrespondenceEmails with the candidate and about themIncluding internal discussion
- DecisionOutcome and the stated reasonThe reason matters if a claim follows
- Retention triggerThe hiring decision dateNot the application date
- PeriodLong enough for a discrimination claimThen deleted, including from email
- Talent poolOnly with consent, and with its own expiryKeeping somebody indefinitely is not a pool
Successful candidates become employees and their data moves into a managed file. Unsuccessful ones sit in a tracking system, in a shared drive and in four mailboxes, and nobody has decided for how long.
The hiring boundary in “Unsuccessful Candidates” matters because applicant and workforce records serve different purposes. Where teams assess review the platform here for mouse jiggler detection, they should keep candidate data outside the monitoring workflow unless a specific, disclosed need and lawful basis have been recorded.
Why they are the forgotten group
The record of processing lists recruitment and describes the people hired.
For a separate benchmark relevant to “Unsuccessful Candidates”, consult the Insider Threat Matrix. Use it to test purpose, data flow, retention, access and response procedures rather than substituting a generic checklist for the organisation’s actual records.
The unsuccessful applicants are a larger group, held for longer relative to any purpose, with no ongoing relationship through which anything is reviewed. They are also the group most likely to make a request, because somebody who was rejected and suspects why has a specific reason to ask.
The retention question
The usual justification is defending a discrimination claim, and that is legitimate. It sets the period: long enough to cover the claim window in the relevant jurisdiction, and no longer.
What makes it unworkable is that nobody deletes anything. The tracking system may purge; the panel's email does not, the shared folder of applications does not, and the spreadsheet somebody made does not.
Which means the stated period is six months and the actual holding is permanent.
Interview notes
Written by a panel member, frequently in shorthand, frequently candid.
They are personal data about the candidate and they are disclosable. A note saying the candidate seemed nervous is fine; one commenting on their accent, their age or their family situation is the document that appears in a tribunal.
The instruction to panels is simple: write what you would be content for them to read, because they may.
The talent pool
Keeping somebody's details because they might suit a future role requires their agreement and an expiry date.
A pool nobody deletes from is a permanent holding of people who applied once, several of whom have forgotten doing so, and it is the thing most likely to prompt a complaint years later.
The request from a rejected candidate
Common, and usually about the assessment rather than the data.
They are entitled to their scores, their notes and the correspondence about them. They are not entitled to other candidates' material or to the successful candidate's identity in most circumstances.
Handling it administratively and on time is also, incidentally, the best available evidence that the process was sound.
Where the deletion fails
The tracking system may purge. The panel's email does not, the shared folder of applications does not, and the spreadsheet somebody made does not. The stated period is six months and the actual holding is permanent.
The talent pool with no expiry
Keeping somebody because they might suit a future role requires their agreement and an end date. A pool nobody deletes from is a permanent holding of people who applied once and have forgotten doing so.
Interview notes are disclosable
Written in shorthand, frequently candid. A note that the candidate seemed nervous is fine; one about their accent, age or family situation is the document that appears in a tribunal.
Larger than the hired, held longer relative to any purpose, with no ongoing relationship through which anything is reviewed — and most likely to ask, because somebody rejected who suspects why has a specific reason.
The retention that never happens
Six months stated, permanent in practice, because the tracking system purges and the panel's email does not. Checking the email is the part that makes the stated period true.