In Canada and the United States, the recruitment sector is being described as a wild west, where inadequate vetting and AI tools fuel a race to place unsuitable candidates. Employers across North America rely heavily on third‑party recruiters and are seeing similar fee structures and pressure to fill roles quickly. The rise of AI‑driven screening tools in Toronto and New York mirrors the trends seen in London, raising concerns about bias and transparency. Regulators in both countries are watching the industry, as mis‑placed hires can lead to costly legal disputes.
Recruiter fees and vetting practices
Against a double threat of AI hiring tools and a tough jobs market, agencies are bending the rules in a race to place (often highly unsuitable) candidates. Recruiters typically charge 15‑25 per cent of a candidate's first‑year annual salary, along with VAT, a fee that easily runs into the tens of thousands for many middle‑ranking white collar jobs. Those within the industry tell me that they have seen bad actors post fake job ads to make themselves seem in demand; inflate salaries during the hiring process to accrue more candidates, only to slash them at the 11th hour, and encourage people to "take a step back in their career to step forward", aka take a pay cut in order to ensure the recruiter's pockets remain lined.
At one agency, a candidate was put forward for a role that required a driving licence, even though theirs had expired; this same agency undertook multiple aggressive chases for fees, despite the workers they offered up having "failed to meet numerous requirements, lacked the necessary documentation, and was not even subjected to the most basic checks by the recruiter". This same cycle, put someone unsuitable forward while assuring the client verbally they are an excellent fit; demand payment despite concerns having been immediately raised about their suitability, then deny any responsibility on the basis that "informal discussions" do not overwrite contractual agreements, happened repeatedly.
According to one former user of an agency with a markedly poor Glassdoor rating, "their main interest is their fee and covering their backside". As a result, reference‑checking is "hopelessly inaccurate", in one case, meaning that debt collection letters for one hire amassed at their employer's door. Another disclosed that legal action was a necessary recourse in order to recoup the substantial agency costs they had paid out.
AI tools and regulatory concerns
Recruiters brag that what sets them apart from both human and AI‑powered services is their vast network of top‑notch candidates. But Marina*, who recently used a nanny agency in London, found the reality altogether different. The "elite" agency charged her 22 per cent plus VAT, after which she saw that they had been "posting on nanny Facebook groups and charging families a f***‑load of money for someone they've just sourced for free".
Typically, contracts stipulate that if a candidate doesn't work out, they will be replaced for free within a defined period (usually six months); the terms she was given offered this for four weeks only. "They do none of the contracts between employer and employee; they don't help at all, none of the payroll. They don't even send an offer letter. They literally do precisely f***‑all," the 38‑year‑old says. "It's all a bit of a scam."
Andrew Hulbert, non‑executive director, says he has repeatedly been in interviews where he has asked why a candidate applied to his firm, only to be told: "'the recruiter just sent my CV forward, I don't really know what I'm doing here.' That happened a lot more than it should have done," he says. "They were just there because the recruiter sort of pushed them into it."
The 'race to place' is the inevitable result of what the recruitment industry calls "the race to place": getting a candidate in post as soon as possible, no matter how unsuitable they might be, in order to beat off the competition and secure their fee. With Office for National Statistics figures from May showing that job vacancies were down seven per cent on the same time last year, agencies are having to compete against one another to get more people into fewer spots.
Finlay Wellington has found much the same. When he used a recruitment platform for Wellington Web Co, his web design business, he was promised that candidates had been vetted. But "it seems a lot of their 'vetting' was more just identification vetting, [like] making sure that their phone number matched". When it came down to ensuring that individuals' credentials were what they seemed, there were no official checks, "which leaves it very open to lying… we end up getting really harmed by essentially hiring people that were just willing to say anything to get the money and get the job that they're looking for."
Oliver Moheda, who runs Total Artist Management, agrees that the lack of accountability when things go wrong is "frustrating". Once payment has been made, "many agencies disappear when problems emerge… The recruitment industry markets itself as reducing risk for employers, but in our experience it can sometimes introduce even greater risk."
Lyndsey Fitheridge, who runs Foxgroves Recruitment, says that despite the many assertions people make about the likes of AI, "the rise of technology has always seemed to make recruitment harder. It eases off parts of it, but it just causes its own issues as it develops. So I think there will always be a place, I'm hoping, for recruiters to give that human connection."
LinkedIn Hiring Assistant claims to save users more than four hours of time spent screening each role, and reduce the number of profiles to review by 62 per cent. While the rise of technology like this has been touted as a timesaver across the board, the knock‑on effects could be seismic for the industry. "AI is not merely assisting recruiters, it is replacing them," according to Forbes. "A world where talent is sourced, evaluated and onboarded without human involvement is not science fiction."
Given Britain's current jobs crisis, pushing good recruiters out of the market would help no one. London has the UK's highest unemployment rate among 16‑24‑year‑olds: agents with the right intentions, who take the time to understand candidates' skills and place them in roles that would really get their careers started, have never been more necessary.
Sympathy will be hard‑won among those who have been burned by recruiters before, however. Wellington has started hiring through his own extended networks; Hulbert created a staff recruiting role, reasoning that the £60,000 salary would cost him less than the amount he was wasting on agencies. He accepts, however, that a recruiter‑less future is unlikely anytime soon. "They're a bit of a necessary evil, I think."