Monica didn’t have a great start in life. She was in care from the age of 2 and she didn’t go to a great school, leaving with no qualifications. Fighting was part of her language – she used violence to settle disputes and disagreements. This worked for Monica amongst her peers, but not when she tried to use the same strategy outside in the real world soon after she turned 18; people immediately called the police and Monica ended up with a conviction for ‘Threats to kill’ under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, for which she received a conditional discharge.

Later on Monica managed to find employment in the public sector. Her professional body wasn’t informed of her conviction and she was not asked about it. The years passed and she became more and more successful. She’d learned to slow down her speech, she was careful not to swear and she learnt not to use her eye gaze to challenge people.

For 30 years Monica worked hard and did extremely well, until the rules changed and people in her sector were required to undergo regular criminal record checks (every three years). Monica handed in her notice. She couldn’t run the risk of being found out.

She then set up her own company to enable her to continue working in the sector. As she was self-employed Monica didn’t have to be DBS-checked so her past never came to light. However, after about 7 years the rules changed again and when she started to tender for contracts, she would often be told that she would need a criminal record check.

That’s when Monica turned to Unlock. We advised Monica that if she wanted to go back into a paid role in the profession she loved, she would have to be honest and open about her past; legally it would then be up to each organisation to decide if they thought a past mistake, 35 years before, was relevant today.

Monica couldn’t do it. She was not confident to disclose her conviction so she went into retirement. She said:

“I felt cornered. The decision was made for me, I left the world of work, a move I would never have made on my own. I would have worked until I dropped, work defined me but I’m just not brave enough to put myself in a position where I have to be judged again

 

Although I’m now effectively retired, I did get away with not disclosing my conviction … I’m just paying for it now.”

Notes about this case

1. This case relates to Unlock’s policy work on challenging the DBS ‘filtering’ process.
2. We have practical guidance on filtering of spent cautions/convictions – a simple guide.
3. Names and details have been changed to protect the identity of those involved.
4. Other policy cases are listed here.

In 2017 Cheryl’s son was convicted of a sexual offence. He received a suspended sentence and was put on the Sex Offenders Register.

Immediately the result of the case was known Cheryl, who was working as a primary school teacher, went to see the head teacher of her school to explain the situation. Although the school were extremely understanding, Cheryl discovered that in order to continue teaching she would need to apply immediately to Ofsted for a waiver. Until she’d received this she would be ‘Disqualified by Association’ (DbA) and would be unable to continue in her current role.

As the school didn’t believe it was necessary to suspend Cheryl, they found her work that she could do from home, for example helping with the school accounts and website management. However, Ofsted informed the school that this arrangement was unacceptable and Cheryl was asked to return anything that belonged to the school to them.

As part of the waiver process, Cheryl was ‘interviewed’ at home by two members of Ofsted staff.

Cheryl said:

“The Ofsted staff grilled me about my son’s conviction. I had to tell them everything – it was horrific. They asked me about safeguarding, giving me details of different scenarios and asking me how I would deal with it. I felt as though they blamed me for my son’s offending behaviour.”

Ofsted told Cheryl they were concerned that she’d not informed the school as soon as her son was arrested which they believed reflected the fact that she did not appreciate how serious her son’s offence was. Cheryl explained that at the time he was arrested, there was every chance that her son would be found not guilty and she therefore would have had nothing to tell the school.

Cheryl heard nothing more from Ofsted for six months. As the waiver process for anybody ‘Disqualified by Association’ was very new, her Union had little understanding of how they could help her or how long the process would take.

The worry and anxiety for both Cheryl and her family has had a detrimental effect on their health and well-being and Cheryl is now considering appointing a solicitor to take on her case.

Cheryl stated:

“I appreciate that Ofsted want me to have a waiver but the least they can do is to deal with the matter quickly or keep in contact so that I know what timescales I’m going to be working to.”

Commenting on Cheryl’s experience, Christopher Stacey, co-director of Unlock, said:

“The regulations were originally intended to be used in childcare settings where partners and others living in the household may have contact with the individuals being cared for, for example childminders looking after children in their own homes.

 

Trade unions have been inundated with cases of individuals being asked to apply for waivers and this has clearly been apparent in the length of time it is taking Ofsted to deal with applications.”

Notes about this case

1. This case relates to Unlock’s policy work on scrapping the ‘Disqualification by association’ regulations that apply to primary schools and other non-domestic childcare settings.
2. We have practical guidance on Childcare Disqualification Regulations – Primary school teachers, nursery staff and others – ‘Disqualified by association’.
3. Names and details have been changed to protect the identity of those involved.
4. Other policy cases are listed here.

When she was 38 weeks pregnant, Louisa was told by her employer (a school) that as a result of her husband’s criminal record, she was ‘disqualified by association’ and would be suspended from her job as a teacher until she had applied for, and been granted a waiver, by Ofsted. The school provided her with very little guidance on how to apply or how long the process was likely to take.

At her next antenatal appointment it was noted that her blood glucose levels had spiked which Louisa felt was due to the stress she was under – the prospect of losing her job and quite possibly her house was difficult to deal with at the same time as being pregnant with her first child.

Louisa applied to Ofsted for the waiver but heard nothing until she received three telephone calls from Ofsted whilst she was in the early stages of labour. No message was left and when Louisa called them back, nobody she spoke to could provide her with any information or seemed to know who had been trying to get in touch with her.

The thought of being investigated because she could be deemed to be a danger to children caused Louisa a huge amount of anxiety and she didn’t feel able to discuss it with her doctor or midwife.

Eventually she was contacted by Ofsted and told that she would be required to have a face-to-face meeting with an Ofsted Inspector.

Louisa said:

“The Inspector went through such personal and traumatic details with me to make sure that I was safe to work with children. Having this dragged up four years after my husband’s conviction had a massive impact on our marriage and we separated for several months.”

After the meeting Louisa contacted Ofsted many times to find out whether her waiver had been granted but often found herself being passed from person to person without being given any help or information. Eventually, Louisa leant that there had been no need for her to apply for a waiver as she was not one of the teachers covered by the legislation.

Louisa stated:

“The lack of clarity in the guidelines meant that I needlessly went through the waiver application process during a particularly vulnerable time. The whole process has had a huge effect on mine and my families life”

Commenting on Louisa’s experience, Christopher Stacey, co-director of Unlock, said:

“The DbA requirements have been around for a number of years, and apply to registered childcare provision outside of schools, but it’s only since October 2014 that the DoE has made it clear that these also apply to primary schools, and one aspect that’s received the most attention has been the ‘disqualification by association’ part. However, the lack of clarity about how the system works has meant that many teachers have been suspended from work and asked to apply for waivers when they don’t need them.”

Notes about this case

1. This case relates to Unlock’s policy work on scrapping the ‘Disqualification by association’ regulations that apply to primary schools and other non-domestic childcare settings.
2. We have practical guidance on Childcare Disqualification Regulations – Primary school teachers, nursery staff and others – ‘Disqualified by association’.
3. Names and details have been changed to protect the identity of those involved.
4. Other policy cases are listed here.

Sadie had been studying for a teaching qualification at university when details of her new partner’s conviction for a sexual offence were disclosed on the additional information section of her enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service certificate.

On receipt of the certificate, the university immediately contacted her to inform her that it was likely she would be ‘disqualified by association’ (DbA) requirements and would be unable to teach unless she applied for and was granted a waiver by Ofsted.

The university explained to Sadie that if Ofsted did not grant her a waiver then she would be unable to continue with her teaching qualification and her work placement in a local secondary school.

Having already been offered a full time job on completion of her teaching qualification, the prospect of not qualifying threw Sadie’s future career plans into question.

With Unlocks help, Sadie was able to highlight to the university that the ‘disqualification by association’ requirements only applied to those in education and supervised activity with children between the ages of 5 and 8 years. As her placement was in a secondary school, the DbA requirements did not apply to her and there was no reason why she shouldn’t finish the university course.

Despite accepting that Sadie would not be subject to the DbA requirements, the university still considered it necessary for her to sit a criminal records panel in order that they could assess any risk that she posed to her students as a result of her partner’s criminal record.

Sadie said:

“Although the university had policies in place to deal with students who have a criminal record they weren’t sure how to deal with somebody who is ‘associated’ to an individual with a criminal record.”

Commenting on Sadie experience, Christopher Stacey, co-director of Unlock, said:

“The lack of clarity about how the ‘disqualification by association’ requirements work has meant that many universities have assumed that anyone who discloses a partner’s criminal record is required to apply for a waiver without first considering whether the work placements they are attending would mean they’d need one or whether their partners record would prevent them teaching in the future.”

Notes about this case

1. This case relates to Unlock’s policy work on scrapping the ‘Disqualification by association’ regulations that apply to primary schools and other non-domestic childcare settings.
2. We have practical guidance on Childcare Disqualification Regulations – Primary school teachers, nursery staff and others – ‘Disqualified by association’.
3. Names and details have been changed to protect the identity of those involved.
4. Other policy cases are listed here.

As a result of his conviction, Terence was required to notify his public protection officer of any new relationships that he started.

Shortly after meeting Lauren through friends, Terence disclosed his conviction to her and she agreed to go with him to the police station to meet his public protection officer. At that meeting, Lauren was asked where she worked and she confirmed that she was a receptionist at a local school.

When she arrived at work the next day, Lauren was told that she needed to see her line manager immediately at which time she was told that the school had been contacted by the local police station informing them that she was in a relationship with ‘somebody on the sex offenders register’. The school were of the opinion that as a result of the ‘disqualification by association’ (DbA) requirements, Lauren had a duty to inform the school of her new relationship and had acted dishonestly in not disclosing it to them. She was suspended until a full investigation had been undertaken.

Further reading around ‘disqualification by association’ made it clear to Terence that this did not apply to Lauren as she was employed in an administrative not a teaching role.

As the investigation continued Lauren became increasingly anxious about the time it was taking for the school to make a decision and also the impact that the investigation would have on her ability to secure work in the future. Realising that the stress and uncertainty were making her very ill, Lauren contacted the school and agreed to resign on the basis that the investigation was dropped and no record of it would be added to her employment history. The school agreed to these terms.

Lauren said:

“Although I knew that the DbA requirements did not apply to the job I was doing, I found it difficult to challenge a large organisation like the school who had the support of the Local Authority’s Designated Officer.”

Commenting on Lauren’s experience, Christopher Stacey, co-director of Unlock, said:

“The disclosure of Terence’s criminal record by the police clearly provoked a knee jerk reaction from the school who didn’t fully consider whether the legislation applied in this situation. It’s highly likely that after fully investigating the case, the school and the Local Authority’s Designated Officer would have found in Lauren’s favour. However, the stress of having to go through this kind of investigation often means that individuals will chose to walk away rather than challenge.”

Notes about this case

1. This case relates to Unlock’s policy work on scrapping the ‘Disqualification by association’ regulations that apply to primary schools and other non-domestic childcare settings.
2. We have practical guidance on Childcare Disqualification Regulations – Primary school teachers, nursery staff and others – ‘Disqualified by association’.
3. Names and details have been changed to protect the identity of those involved.
4. Other policy cases are listed here.