This is a diagnostic, framework-style blog for UK Facilities Management hiring managers. It’s not a market update and it’s not a generic “how to hire” guide.

It’s a 7-point leak test that shows where job briefs “leak” credibility in FM, scope, mobilisation, compliance ownership, out-of-hours reality, tooling/data, stakeholder map, and backlog truth and what to fix so you attract better-matched applicants, faster shortlists, fewer mis-hires, and reduced churn.

Why this exists: in 2026, experienced FM candidates don’t read job descriptions; they interrogate them. If the brief feels vague, mis-sold, or risky, the best people self-select out quietly.

Where MostonRECRUIT fits: As a specialist Facilities Management recruitment agency, we see the same avoidable brief issues derail hiring across technical and leadership roles. We built this leak test as a practical stress-test to help hiring teams tighten the brief, protect credibility, and secure talent.

Why this matters now in the UK (2025/26 conditions)

FM hiring is still constrained for technical and senior roles, and the supply chain feeding FM (construction, repair & maintenance, engineering skills) remains under pressure.

Here are a few anchor points you can cite internally when justifying a better brief:

The commercial reality: strong FM candidates have options. If your brief forces them to guess at scope, risk, workload, or accountability, they’ll protect themselves by walking away.

How to use the Leak Test

For each leak below:

1. Read the “why it repels strong candidates” section.

2. Compare the FM example to your vacancy.

3. Use the fix checklist to tighten the job brief and advert immediately.

You don’t need gimmicks. You need clarity. Passing this test won’t flood you with more applicants it will attract better applicants, reduce drop-outs, and shorten time-to-hire.

Leak 1: Scope without boundaries

The leak: the role sounds responsible for “everything” but is precise about almost nothing.

Why this repels strong candidates:
Senior FM people know risk lives in the grey space. When scope is loose, they assume hidden responsibilities, blurred lines between landlord/tenant/service partner, and informal work that never makes it into the role profile. In a competitive market (CIPD’s data shows talent competition remains high), they won’t gamble their reputation on a job they can’t map.

Real-world FM example (anonymised):
A “Regional Technical Services Manager” post was advertised as “overseeing engineering performance across a national portfolio” with “a small team” and “hands-on delivery”. The advert never clarified portfolio size, service model, or team structure. The reality was 60+ ageing sites, thin coverage, and no central projects function 70% firefighting. After two short tenures, the market stopped engaging.

Fix checklist: make scope concrete

• Estate: number/type of sites; critical vs non-critical assets; operating profile (24/7? public-facing?).

• Model: self-delivery vs TFM; what’s subcontracted; what’s centralised.

• Team: direct reports, matrix support, schedulers, compliance resource.

• Levers: budget authority, capex influence, sign-off rights.

• Time split: BAU vs projects vs stakeholders vs people management (rough %).

• Out of scope: explicitly state what doesn’t sit with the role.

If a capable FM can’t sketch their first 90 days from your brief, scope is leaking.

Leak 2: Mobilisation and handover fuzziness

The leak: the role is sold as BAU, but the reality is mobilisation, transition, or recovery.

Why this repels strong candidates:
Mobilisation is a different job to steady-state FM. Poor mobilisation/transition planning drives operational disruption and compliance exposure. UK public procurement guidance expects structured mobilisation planning with clear milestones, and poor information transfer (asset data, documentation, standards) is a known failure point in handback/transition.

Real-world FM example (anonymised):
A Contract Manager was hired into what was described as a “well-established operation”. In practice, it was a compressed mobilisation window with incomplete asset data, inconsistent legacy documentation, and supply chain rebuilds without a proper transition team. The hire exited inside 12 months citing mis-sold scope.

Fix checklist: label the phase, show the support

• Phase: say plainly if it’s new contract start-up, retender, insource, or reset.

• Timeline: mobilisation window and what’s already complete vs outstanding.

• Support: central mobilisation/PMO presence; what sits with them vs the role.

• Inherited reality: state the condition of asset data/docs and key known issues.

• Success markers: what “good” looks like at 30/90/180 days.

Candidly describing a tough mobilisation with visible support attracts operators; glossing over it kills trust.

Leak 3: Compliance ownership in the grey zone

The leak: the brief implies responsibility for statutory compliance but never clarifies ownership, authority, or exposure.

Why this repels strong candidates:
UK building safety reforms emphasise identifiable dutyholders and accountable persons for higher-risk buildings, with defined responsibilities for managing fire and structural safety. FM leaders are increasingly alert to “responsible without authority” situations especially where lines between landlord/owner/managing agent/in-house/provider are blurred.

Real-world FM example:
A Head of Estates spec stated “ultimate responsibility for statutory compliance across the estate.” Late-stage probing revealed key accountabilities sat elsewhere (landlord/SPV), local teams were signing off PPM without oversight, and the role lacked compliance resource and capex influence. Two strong candidates withdrew.

Fix checklist: draw the compliance map

• Dutyholders: who is legally accountable for what (landlord vs occupier vs provider)?

• Role status: dutyholder / Responsible Person / named competent person—or managing process on behalf of one?

• Authority: budget, sign-off rights, escalation routes, stop-the-job powers.

• Support: QHSE/compliance team, external consultants, standards (e.g., SFG20-aligned PPM), CAFM regime.

• Known gaps: legacy issues being worked through and governance cadence.

Clear compliance ownership doesn’t scare good candidates—it reassures them.

Credibility box: what MostonRECRUIT sees most often (UK FM briefs)

From supporting FM hiring across the UK, the same leaks repeat especially across Contract Managers, TSMs, Hard FM Managers, Mobilisation Leads, and Heads of Estates.

Most common “hidden risk” phrases and what candidates hear

• “Hands-on and strategic” = “two jobs, one salary.”

• “Fast-paced environment” = “permanent firefighting.”

• “Wear many hats” = “boundaries don’t exist.”

• “Flexible out-of-hours support” = “constant on-call.”

What a ‘good’ brief always includes (so we can deliver a strong shortlist)

• Estate profile, service model, and team structure

• Mobilisation/backlog reality (and resourcing)

• Compliance RACI + decision rights

• Out-of-hours pattern + allowances/support

• Tooling/data maturity (CAFM + asset register status)

• Stakeholder map + governance

Leak 4: Out-of-hours and workload ambiguity

The leak: “flexible” or “business needs” language with no pattern, rota, or support detail.

Why this repels strong candidates:
Out-of-hours expectations shape quality of life more than job title. If the advert is vague, experienced candidates assume the worst particularly in critical estates. With pay transparency now common across UK postings, vagueness stands out as either disorganisation or deliberate omission.

Fix checklist: specify the pattern

• Rota frequency (1-in-X), average call volume, remote vs site attendance.

• Standby/call-out pay, TOIL, peak management (shutdowns/winter).

• Incident support model (who else is on call; escalation routes).

• Boundaries for senior roles (when they are/aren’t in technical rotas).

Leak 5: Tooling and data fantasy vs reality

The leak: the brief talks “data-driven FM” while the asset data/CAFM reality can’t support it.

Why this repels strong candidates:
FM leaders know “garbage in, garbage out.” UK Government FM standards set minimum requirements for asset data because incomplete/inconsistent asset information undermines effective FM delivery. Procurement and controls guidance explicitly asks whether the asset register is complete/accurate and aligned to the FM asset data standard because it directly affects maintenance strategy and performance.

Fix checklist: tell the truth and show the roadmap

• Name the CAFM/IWMS and current adoption level.

• State known data gaps (coverage, PPM integrity, mobile usage, compliance evidence).

• Clarify whether this role must run the system or fix the system.

• Show funded roadmap (uplift, integrations, data cleansing) and who supports it.

Leak 6: Stakeholder map missing

The leak: “stakeholder management” is listed, but governance and politics are invisible.

Why this repels strong candidates:
Senior FM hires want to know who decides, who funds, and who blocks. In matrixed environments, ambiguity often means misaligned priorities and slow decision-making career-limiting if the role is measured on outcomes without influence.

Fix checklist: sketch the map

• Reporting line(s) and matrix lines.

• Capex and remedial approval route.

• Key stakeholders that define success (client reps, landlord, Ops, Finance, H&S).

• Known friction points and escalation cadence.

• Forums where FM has a seat (risk committee, governance boards, change control).

Leak 7: Backlog truth and resourcing gap

The leak: the role sells “strategy and optimisation” while hiding backlog, risk position, and resource constraints.

Why this repels strong candidates:
Good FM leaders don’t fear difficult estates they fear being judged against a narrative that ignores the starting position. If backlog and risk posture are hidden, candidates assume they’ll inherit blame for historic under-investment.

Fix checklist: put the backlog on the table

• Quantify backlog order of magnitude (actions, risk categories, £ band).

• Trajectory (growing, flat, reducing) and funded programmes.

• First 12–24 month reality: stabilise vs transform time split.

• Measurement: what “good” looks like given the baseline.

The practical takeaway

If you want stronger FM candidates to apply, your brief must answer one core question:

“Is this role clear, honest, and winnable for someone good?”

If not, the best candidates won’t argue. They’ll leave quietly.

Pressure-test your brief

MostonRECRUIT built this leak test because it reflects what we see across UK FM hiring: the best candidates are protecting themselves from vague scope, unclear accountability, and mis-sold workloads.

If you want a practical next step:

Send us your vacancy brief and we’ll score it against the FM Hiring Leak Test, highlight what’s likely costing you candidates, and suggest fixes you can implement immediately plus (if useful) a benchmark view on role level and market compensation.