Jennifer contacted our helpline when she was applying for a job as the Chief Executive Officer of a large, well-known organisation.

She explained that the wording on the application form was a little unclear as it asked:

Do you have any cautions or convictions?

Jennifer was also unsure whether her conviction was spent and wanted some advice around disclosing it to the employer.

We asked Jennifer for further details about her conviction and the job she was applying for. As a result of this, we were able to advise her that her conviction was now spent and from the information she had provided about the job, we explained that it was likely to be covered by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and so she wouldn’t need to disclose details of her conviction. If the company chose to carry out a basic criminal record check, her certificate would come back ‘clear’.

Jennifer felt that in light of the position she was applying for, she should disclose her conviction. She did not want it to come to light once she had started the job and potentially bring the company into disrepute.

Our advisor explained that, if she was making that choice, she should only disclose to a relevant senior member of the company, for example, the Head of Human Resources, and that she should explain that even though legally she did not need to disclose, it was important to her to do so.

Jennifer got back in touch with us and said:

I discreetly disclosed my conviction to the HR Director and was told that it was not a problem. However, they did appreciate my letting them know and my reasons for doing so.

Lessons

Unlock’s advice would always be to only disclose a conviction when you’re asked to do so. However, if you are worried about it coming to light perhaps because of the high profile job you’re applying for, or maybe because there is a lot of information available online about you, then it may be in your best interest to disclose even though legally you may not have to.

Links

• Disclosing criminal records to employers

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.

Pheobe contacted our helpline as she wanted clarification that her conviction was spent and did not need to be disclosed when applying to become a member of the Board of Governors at her child’s school.

We explained to Pheobe that generally school governor roles were exempt from the Rehabilitation of Offenders 1974 and would usually require an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service check. Therefore, although her conviction was spent, it would still be disclosed on an enhanced certificate until it became eligible for filtering (11 years from the date of conviction).

Pheobe told us that she was now reconsidering her decision to apply for the role as she didn’t feel that the school would consider taking her on once they knew about her conviction.

We explained that we didn’t think her offence was relevant to the work that she would be doing as a school governor and although she needed to disclose it, it didn’t mean that she would automatically be turned down. To reflect the diverse background of its children, schools often looked to recruit governors with a wide range of backgrounds, skills and experiences. We gave her some further information on what points she should try to address when disclosing to the school to allay any fears they may have.

Phoebe contacted us a couple of months later to let us know that after disclosing her conviction to the school, they had carried out an in-depth risk assessment before offering her the role of a school governor.

Phoebe said:

I was really disappointed to hear that I needed to disclose my conviction and I seriously considered withdrawing my application. I’m so pleased that the Unlock advisor encouraged me to go ahead as I absolutely love the job at the school and I’m starting to feel as though I’m making a real difference to the children.

Lessons

Just because a role requires you to disclose your spent conviction, don’t be put off from applying. Unless you are barred from working with children, a criminal record shouldn’t stop you being a school governor. Each case should be judged on its own merits.

Links

• Childcare Disqualification Requirements – Primary school teachers, nursery staff and others – ‘Disqualified by association’
• Enhanced disclosure

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.

Tom contacted our helpline for some advice on a problem he was having in completing a teaching qualification at university.

Tom explained that he had just started a teacher training course when his partner had been arrested for being in possession of indecent images. Tom told the university about the situation with his partner and it was agreed that he would defer his study for one year whilst the police were investigating the case against his partner.

At the end of the police investigation, Tom’s partner received a conviction and a short prison sentence. On his partners release from prison, Tom reapplied to the university and began to look forward to finishing his studies after what had been a very difficult time in his life.

Tom explained to us that he had just received notification from the university telling him that he was unable to return to the teacher training course as he was ‘disqualified by association’. The university stated that:

The criteria for disqualification under the 2006 Act and the 2009 Regulations include those:

Living in the same household where another person who is disqualified lives or is employed (‘disqualified by association’) as specified in regulation 9 of the 2009 Regulations

Tom told us that he wanted to teach secondary school children and that even though he was required to undertake work placements, these would always take place in a secondary school.

We contacted the university on Tom’s behalf and explained that the ‘disqualification by association’ regulations only apply to education and supervised activity for children between the ages of 5 to 8 years during school hours. As Tom was looking to work with children from the age of 11 upwards, they would not be applicable to him. We asked the university if they would reconsider its decision to preclude Tom from the teacher training course.

The university very quickly responded to our letter confirming that they had sought further clarification and were now in a position to revoke their decision and offered Tom a place at university to start the following September.

Tom told us:

Prior to contacting Unlock I felt that I was being persecuted by the university. I was never arrested, questioned or charged by the police yet I was being treated like a criminal. I’m so glad that Unlock were able to take on my case and speak out on my behalf.

Lessons

Although colleges, universities and employers are aware of the existence of legislation, they are not always sure how to apply it to the individuals they are dealing with. Even if Tom had been looking to teach children under the age of 8, precluding him from studying would still not have been the right course of action. The university should have explained to Tom that he would need to apply to Ofsted for a waiver to enable him to teach.

Links

• Childcare Disqualification Requirements – Primary school teachers, nursery staff and others – ‘Disqualification by association’

Notes about this case

This case relates to Unlock’s casework and our policy work on scrapping the disqualification by association regulations.

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

We were recently contacted by an individual who was confused by the terms and conditions of a television company’s application form which he was in the process of completing. The application form stated:

You must disclose to the Producer details of any criminal convictions and/or unspent convictions other than driving offences which have not resulted in a ban or more serious sentence. You shall notify the Producer immediately if there are any criminal charges brought against you or if any information you provide in your application becomes inaccurate between now and the first transmission of the programme.

As a result of the question, the individual was unsure whether he should disclose his spent conviction.

We contacted the television production company to raise our concerns about the misleading question. Although it made reference to “unspent” convictions, it also asked that applicants disclose details of “any criminal convictions”. As no reference was made to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, then potentially an applicant could over-disclose their criminal record providing more information than the television company would legally be allowed to have.

After some time had passed, we had not received a response from the company, so we raised the issue with the ICO. We later received an email from the ICO stating they had written to the company to strongly recommend that it reviews its terms and conditions and removes any ambiguities, to make it clear that applicants do not have to disclose details of convictions that are spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.

The company promptly got in touch with us, apologising for the delay in replying, thanking us for drawing their attention to the misleading question and confirming that they had now amended their application form to state:

You must disclose to the Producer details of any unspent convictions other than driving offences which have not resulted in a ban or more serious sentence. You shall notify the Producer immediately if there are any unspent criminal charges brought against you or if any information you provide in your application becomes inaccurate between now and the date of first transmission of the programme.

 

We are looking to engage further with the television production company to assist them with their criminal record checking policy.

Lessons

This case shows how organisations can believe that they are asking the correct question, but instead mislead people to disclose information that they are not legally entitled to hold under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

Links

• We have information regarding going on a game show with a criminal record

Notes about this case study

This case study relates to our work with other organisations.

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

We were contacted by an individual who had applied for public liability insurance using an online comparison website.

In order to obtain a quote the individual was asked to disclose the convictions, both spent and unspent, of all family members, even those that were not involved in the running of the business.

As it was difficult to establish a suitable contact to raise this with at the comparison site, we raised the issue with the Association of British Insurers (ABI). They, in turn, contacted the comparison site.

We were later informed by the ABI that the comparison site had taken on board our concerns and had amended the wording on their site to reflect the fact that anybody purchasing public liability insurance only needed to disclose the unspent convictions of individuals who had a financial interest in the business. The question was changed to:

Has anyone with control over a financial interest in the business including you, your family or any partner/principal/director, been convicted of any criminal offence other than a motoring offence or an offence that is now considered ‘spent’ under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974?

Lessons

This case showed that whatever type of company you are and whatever type of insurance policy you are selling, it’s important to ensure that the questions you ask are relevant and related to the appropriate people.

Links

• Insurance – detailed guide
• Rehabilitation of Offenders Act

Notes about this case study

This case study relates to our work with other organisations.

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

We were recently contacted by an individual who had been seeking an online quote for home contents insurance from an insurance broker.

The broker’s online application form asked applicants to disclose all unspent convictions and provided a link to a table setting out the relevant rehabilitation periods for various sentences and disposals.

However, despite the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (ROA)  having been amended in March 2014, the individual who contacted us was concerned that the rehabilitation periods listed on the site were based on old legislation prior to the changes that had been implemented in March 2014.

We contacted the broker and explained that the information currently on their site relating to the ROA was out of date. We provided them with details of the new legislation and also sent them a link to our disclosure calculator which we felt may also be a useful aid for their clients in helping them work out when their conviction would become spent.

The broker was keen to engage with us and within days had updated their website and guidance to reflect the amended legislation.

Lessons

This case showed how difficult it can be for organisations to keep up to date with changes in legislation. However, once this has been highlighted to them, many organisation will implement the necessary changes to ensure that their customers have clear, up to date guidance.

Links

• Insurance – detailed guide
• Rehabilitation of Offenders Act

Notes about this case study

This case study relates to our work with other organisations.

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

Max contacted our helpline as he needed some help in applying for a new job. In particular, he wanted advice as to what his chances of success would be when an employer saw the details of his criminal record on his Disclosure and Barring certificate which related to a violent offence.

Max explained that he was currently working for the NHS and was really keen to go for a promotion. He had worked for the NHS for a long time and thought that his chances of success were pretty good, although his current employment wasn’t aware of his conviction as it was spent and the role only involving the disclosure of unspent convictions.

He’d also applied for a job with a large telecommunications company and had been invited to attend an interview. Both jobs were office/phone based and both organisations had stated that a DBS check would be required.

Max was extremely concerned that his DBS certificate would disclose his conviction from 2009 and that any job offer would be revoked immediately his employers saw his certificate. He was also worried that his current employer would treat him differently once they become aware of his conviction. Max told us that he was now reconsidering whether to apply for the promotion or attend the interview.

We explained to Max that from the information he had provided, neither job he was applying for would be eligible for a DBS check. However, NHS trusts often use generic application forms (irrespective of the job role) and these tend to state that a DBS check would be needed. We told Max that he shouldn’t assume that a DBS check would be undertaken for the job he was applying for and, he should go ahead and complete the application form without disclosing any details of his criminal record at this stage.

With regard to the telecommunications job, we believed that this would only be eligible for a basic level criminal record check. We explained to Max that if he were applying or jobs which he believed were not exempt from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act then he could challenge the eligibility of these checks with the DBS once an application for a check had been submitted.

We encouraged Max to go ahead with the NHS  application and attend the interview with the telecommunications company. If he were successful, then the employer would usually make it clear at that time what level of criminal record they would be doing.

We assured Max that just because his conviction would show on a DBS certificate, this should not stop him from applying for these types of jobs in the future. It would be necessary for him to disclose his conviction and we gave him some further advice around this.

We spoke to Max a month later and he told us that he had applied for the promotion with the NHS and had been successful.

Max said:

“In the end, the NHS only did a basic check for this job and my certificate came back ‘clean’. If I hadn’t contacted Unlock I doubt whether I would have had the confidence to apply – I just assumed that a DBS check was going to be done”

Lessons

This case highlights how easy it is to miss out on possible opportunities by making assumptions based on hearsay and inaccurate information. If you feel that you’ve got the necessary skills and experience to do a job, then don’t be put off from applying just because you think that a DBS check will be done.

Links

• Challenging an ineligible DBS check
• Disclosing to employers

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.

Nick contacted our helpline as he wanted some help and reassurance over a situation he’d found himself in with a new employer.

Nick told us that when he was growing up, he’d ‘got in with the wrong crowd’ and received several cautions and convictions. They were all for very minor things but he felt very ashamed and embarrassed about them as they did not reflect the person he was now.

Nick explained that he’d recently started working in a warehouse but when he applied for the job, he hadn’t disclosed his criminal record. However, he’d been working for two weeks and had been told by the company trainer that his criminal record check would be back at the end of the week and, if there was anything on it, they’d ‘get rid’ of him.

Nick told us that he was really enjoying the job and was worried that he would be sacked. He’d tried to find out whether he should have originally disclosed his criminal record but his research had given him conflicting information and he therefore felt that the only option open to him was to telephone the company’s HR department and disclose his conviction to them. He’d had the conversation with them and was now of the opinion that he may have made the situation worse and wanted clarification on his position from us.

We explained to Nick that all of his cautions and convictions were spent and that his basic disclosure certificate (which is the one that the company had applied for) would come back ‘blank’. We told Nick that he should do nothing further until he received the certificate. If, following his disclosure, the HR department had made any notes about his criminal record then, under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, they should not use this information to make any recruitment decisions based on his criminal record.

Nick contacted us several months later to let us know that his basic disclosure had come back ‘clean’ and that the HR department had confirmed his appointment in writing. He told us that despite his previous convictions seeming to have been disregarded by the warehouse, he felt that he was treated differently to other employees who had started work at the same time as he had. Although he had no proof that this was as a result of his convictions, he felt that he just ‘didn’t fit in’.

Nick told us that as a result of now understanding that his convictions were spent and that nothing would show on a basic disclosure, he was able to apply for other jobs confident about what he needed to disclose. He had subsequently applied for another warehouse job, ticked the ‘No’ box asking about criminal record on the application form and had been working successfully for the new company for approximately 3 weeks.

Nick said:

“In hindsight, I should have found out whether my convictions were spent before I started applying for work. Knowing that I didn’t have to disclose my criminal record gave me a lot more confidence when I came to apply for my next job”

Lessons

This case highlights the importance of knowing what forms part of your criminal record before you start applying for work. This means that there will be less chance of your over or under disclosing. You can apply for your own basic disclosure to know which convictions are currently unspent.

Links

• Understanding your criminal record
• Disclosing to employers

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 as he wanted some help and advice about getting back into work after receiving a conviction for a sexual offence.

Paul explained that he’d had an exemplary work record until he disclosed his conviction to his employer. Although he had worked for the same organisation for a considerable amount of time, he was immediately suspended and then dismissed. Despite his excellent work history, and the fact that his offence was not related in any way to his work, when he asked his employers for a reference they only agreed to confirm that he had not been involved in any disciplinary action rather than comment on his work.

Having read posts on various forum’s, Paul believed that his chances of getting back into work in the future was going to be difficult and, as a result, there would be little opportunity for him to rebuild his life. He had worked in the care industry for many years but felt that his previous skills and experience had been rendered useless and that he would no longer be able to contribute fully to society.

We explained to Paul that our experience had shown that employers working with children or vulnerable adults were often the most risk adverse and that it can be difficult to get work in this field with anything other than a completely blank DBS certificate. However, Paul had a lot of skills and experience in several different fields and this was his one and only conviction. We agreed that the lack of a reference could present him with an additional problem and we suggested that whilst searching for paid work, he may want to consider undertaking some kind of voluntary work. This could provide him with additional skills/experience, to build up his self-confidence and hopefully, give him a reference that he could use when applying for paid work. We gave Paul some advice about the best way of disclosing his conviction to any potential voluntary organisation.

We pointed out to Paul that there are employers in the work place willing to give people with convictions a second chance and we provided him with a link to our list of friendly employers.

When we contacted Paul for an update on his situation he told us that following the discussion with us, he took our advice and applied for a voluntary role with a homeless charity. He had been working with individuals with criminal convictions, many of whom were deemed ‘unemployable’. This voluntary role had resulted in him securing an interview for a paid job with another homeless organisation.

Paul stated:

“I was really down when I rang Unlock but took their advice and found a voluntary job. It was a really healthy and useful way to keep my brain active and helped me to move on in the right direction. The information sent me was really appreciated and the support offered gave me the confidence to apply for both voluntary and paid work”

Lessons

This case highlights the many benefits of volunteering especially if you are unable to get a reference from a previous employer or you have lost your confidence as a result of your conviction. Very often, voluntary positions can lead into paid work, either with the organisation you volunteer with or an associated one.

Links

• Looking for friendly employers
• Volunteering
• Disclosing to employers

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.