Diana had been working as a receptionist at a GP’s surgery for two weeks when she received her enhanced DBS certificate. She was horrified to see that it disclosed two theft convictions from 1987 and 1990. After nearly 30 years, she hadn’t expected them to appear on a criminal record check and due to the embarrassment she still felt about them she was considering resigning from her job. She contacted our helpline for some advice.

We explained to Diana that as she had two convictions they wouldn’t currently be eligible for filtering from her enhanced DBS check. We empathised with her over the shock and embarrassment she felt upon seeing the convictions disclosed, but advised her not to make any rash decisions. We gave her some advice on disclosing her convictions to her employer, suggesting that she should be totally open and honest and explain the circumstances around them. We recommended that she highlight how she’d never been in trouble with the police since 1990 and didn’t pose a risk to her employer or anyone she would be dealing with during the course of her work.

We contacted Diana a few months later and she informed us that although she’d handed in her notice, the practice manager had told her that he didn’t want to lose her and wanted to find out more about the reason why she’d resigned. They talked about her historic convictions, and he told her that he had no problem with them. Her resignation was not accepted.

Diana stated:

“I can’t thank you enough for your support and helping me through such a stressful period. The advice I received enabled me to talk to my practice manager and he was absolutely amazing.”

Lessons

This case demonstrates how due to shame and embarrassment, people often let their historic convictions stop them from moving on with their lives. However, there are good employers out there who are prepared to look beyond your convictions and will employ you based on your skills and experience.

Links

• Disclosing criminal records to employers
• Challenging the DBS ‘filtering’ process as it doesn’t go far enough

Notes about this case study

This case study relates to Unlock’s helpline.

Names and details have been changed to protect the identity of those involved.

Wendy contacted our helpline following the offer of a teaching role in a local school. She’d just received her enhanced DBS certificate and was shocked to see that a conviction she’d received 22 years ago was disclosed on it.

Wendy explained that prior to applying for the job she’d contacted the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) who’d advised her that, based upon the information she’d provided, her conviction would be eligible for filtering and wouldn’t need to be disclosed to any potential employers as it wouldn’t appear on her enhanced certificate.

However, whilst her enhanced DBS certificate showed only one conviction, there were 3 counts of fraud which meant that under the current filtering rules it would never be eligible for filtering from standard or enhanced DBS checks.

We advised Wendy that she would have to hand her DBS certificate into the school but gave her advice around the best way of disclosing the conviction.

Following her disclosure to the headmaster, Wendy contacted us again informing us that the meeting had not gone well and that the headmaster had suggested that she’d been dishonest in not disclosing the conviction rather than it being an innocent mistake as she’d explained to him.

The headmaster did however agree to contact both Unlock and the DBS for further information. We were able to confirm to him that based upon the information Wendy had provided (that she only had one conviction) we had informed her that her conviction would be eligible for filtering and that she didn’t need to disclose it. We explained how we’d had many callers to our helpline who hadn’t realised that for the purposes of filtering, each ‘count’ was dealt with as a separate conviction and individuals who’d assumed that their conviction was eligible for filtering had subsequently realised that this was not the case.

Wendy had a further meeting with the headmaster and stated:

“He asked me about my 22 year old conviction and I had to go through a period of my life which I would rather forget about. He also asked me if I was sorry for what I had done and he had to conduct a safeguarding assessment as he had to think of the children. This made me feel terrible, because I am a good person and my conviction was 22 years ago and I have moved forward since then.”

At the end of the meeting the headmaster had stated that he’d let Wendy know of his decision in a few days time. She heard nothing for a week but, after contacting the school had been told that she’d got the job and could start the following day.

Lessons

This case demonstrates how important it is to know exactly what’s on your criminal record and to have a good understanding of how the filtering system works. You’ll then be clear on what will appear on your standard/enhanced DBS check and what you’ll need to disclose to an employer.

We don’t believe that the current filtering system is fit for purpose and needs to be changed. Although Wendy’s conviction was 22 years ago, many employers will find it difficult to consider anything appearing on a DBS certificate in a fair and proportionate way.

Links

• Filtering of spent cautions/convictions – A simple guide
• Challenging the DBS ‘filtering’ process as it doesn’t go far enough

Notes about this case study

This case study relates to Unlock’s helpline.

Names and details have been changed to protect the identity of those involved.

Paul contacted our helpline after a major insurance company cancelled his motor insurance policy as they believed that he’d failed to disclose an unspent conviction. Paul had been careful to ensure that his policy started on the day his conviction became spent so that he wouldn’t have any need to disclose it.

We confirmed that based upon the information Paul had provided, his conviction would be spent when the motor policy started. We suggested that he contact the insurance company again as, under the Association of British Insurers (ABI) guidelines to insurers, spent convictions should always be disregarded.

Almost immediately, Paul rang us back and told us that after speaking to the insurance company they’d refused to reinstate his policy as they were adamant he had an unspent conviction. He asked whether we could intervene on his behalf.

We rang the insurer and were able to confirm the date that Paul’s conviction became spent; providing them with details of how this date had been arrived at. We also drew their attention to the ABI guidelines for insurance companies which states that spent convictions should be disregarded for insurance purposes. We asked the company if they would reconsider reinstating Paul’s motor insurance policy.

The insurer promised to look into the situation and a week later we heard from Paul who told us:

“The insurers head of complaints contacted me to apologise for the errors they’d made. He agreed that my conviction was spent when the policy started and confirmed that they would be reinstating my policy.”

Lessons

This case highlights how insurers can make mistakes when calculating spent dates due to a lack of understanding of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

Many people find it difficult to challenge an insurer but if you can provide evidence that your conviction is spent (you can get a print out from our disclosure calculator, but a basic DBS certificate would confirm this) and refer the insurer to the ABI guidelines it’s sometimes possible to have your case reviewed and your policy reinstated.

Links

• Insurance and convictions – A detailed guide

Notes about this case study

This case study relates to Unlock’s helpline.

Names and details have been changed to protect the identity of those involved.

Celine contacted our helpline after both her son and daughter had been suspended from their teaching roles under the Disqualification by Association (DbA) requirements because they had returned to live with her.

Having recently been released from prison, Celine’s conviction was unspent and, as her children both taught under 8’s they were suspended from teaching until they’d applied for waivers from Ofsted. We provided Celine with advice regarding the DbA process.

Celine contacted us several weeks later to inform us that, as the waivers were taking such a long time to be processed, both her children had been asked to resign their positions from their schools, which they did. The children were eventually granted their waivers from Ofsted, but were unable to use them as they’d already resigned their posts and the waivers were not transferable to other schools.

At the same time as being suspended from her job at the  school, Celine’s daughter had also been suspended from a coaching job she had at a gymnastic club. Although her daughter had voluntarily disclosed her mother’s unspent conviction it didn’t appear that there was any legislation in place which meant she needed to be suspended. The gymnastic club contacted the DBS asking them to consider whether she should be put on the children’s barred list.

After a few weeks Celine let us know that her daughter had received a letter from the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS), informing her that after a referral they would not be placing her on the barred lists. However, despite being aware of this, the gymnastic club were not willing to reinstate her.

Celine stated:

“I have the conviction, my children don’t. If we’d known about DbA earlier my children’s career choices may have been very different or they could have elected not to live with me. My children have both been discriminated against because of my conviction, even though they have done nothing wrong themselves.”

Lessons

This case demonstrates just how unfair DbA is, leading to people who do not have convictions being prevented from working with children and families suffering months of stress and worry.

In May 2016 Unlock made a submission to the Department of Education’s consultation process setting out the reasons why we believed the DbA requirement was ineffective and should be scrapped. We’re awaiting a government response to that consultation, setting out how they plan to proceed.

Links

• Childcare Disqualification Requirements – Primary school teachers, nursery staff and others – ‘Disqualified by association’
• Scrapping the ‘Disqualification by association’ regulations that apply to primary schools and other non-domestic childcare setting

Notes about this case study

This case study relates to Unlock’s helpline.

Names and details have been changed to protect the identity of those involved.

Following receipt of a caution for ABH, Albert contacted our helpline as he was extremely concerned that his caution could affect his daughter’s current job. Albert stated that his daughter was working in a nursery and had been told by her manager that it was company policy that if any member of her household was arrested she had a duty to inform her employers. Albert’s daughter had disclosed details of the caution and was worried that she would be sacked.

We explained to Albert the the nursery were likely to be using Disqualification by Association (DbA) legislation which meant that anybody providing care for children up to and including reception age had to disclose the unspent cautions/convictions of anybody they lived with. Employees who met this criteria would need to apply for a waiver from Ofsted before they could continue working.

We reassured Albert that as his caution was spent immediately, the DbA requirements did not apply and should therefore have no impact on his daughter.

A couple of days later Albert contacted us again to inform us his daughter had been suspended from work and had been asked to attend a disciplinary meeting as the nursery believed she’d delayed notifying them of the caution. We advised him that as his caution was spent, and had been disclosed in error by his daughter, the nursery should disregard it.

We provided Albert with further relevant information and advice which we believed his daughter would be able to make use of at her disciplinary meeting.

Several months later Albert forwarded us a copy of an email his daughter had received from the nursery which stated:

“There is no entitlement for us to require you to share any information relating to spent convictions of family members.

 

In this instance, there was confusion due to a mistaken belief that your father’s caution was not spent, therefore, ought to have been declared. I sincerely apologise for this confusion.”

He informed us that his daughter had now returned to work.

Lessons

This case demonstrates how nursery’s and schools are often unaware of the correct rules relating to ‘Disqualification by Association’. This can lead to incorrect decisions being made and employees and their families suffering months of stress and worry.

However,if you have a good understanding of DbA, it is possible to successfully challenge an employers decision.

Links

• Childcare Disqualification Requirements – Primary school teachers, nursery staff and others – ‘Disqualified by association’
• Scrapping the ‘Disqualification by association’ regulations that apply to primary schools and other non-domestic childcare setting

Notes about this case study

This case study relates to Unlock’s helpline.

Names and details have been changed to protect the identity of those involved.