Jeremy contacted our helpline when he needed some advice around the disclosure of a motoring offence.

Jeremy explained that he had recently finished university and had been offered a solicitors training contract with a law firm. At a recent meeting with the solicitors he’d been told that under Solicitors Regulation Authority guidelines he needed to disclose any incidents which resulted in a court appearance.

He had checked the guidelines himself and read:

‘Motoring offences that result in a criminal conviction must be disclosed.

Motoring offences that do not result in a criminal conviction do not need to be disclosed’.

Jeremy told us that approximately 10 years previously, he’d been to court for a motoring offence where he’d received a fine and 6 points on his licence. Although Jeremy was under the impression that this wasn’t classed as a conviction, he was confused about whether he should disclose it or not and thought that it would probably be best to be upfront and honest and disclose.

We explained to Jeremy that as he had been to court, then his offence would be classed as a conviction. We read through the SRA guidelines which stated that the SRA would carry out standard Disclosure and Barring Service criminal record checks and told Jeremy that for the time being, he would have to disclose his conviction to the SRA, especially as it would appear on his DBS check. However, on the eleventh anniversary of the offence, his conviction would be eligible for filtering and he would no longer have to disclose it and it would not appear on any type of criminal record check.

Despite having to disclose his conviction, it did not fall into a category which would result in an automatic refusal by the SRA and we provided Jeremy with some advice about when and how to disclose. We mentioned to Jeremy that it the SRA refused his application he should try to establish whether he would have the right to appeal the decision.

When we contacted Jeremy several weeks later, he confirmed that his conviction had made no difference to his employers or the SRA and he had stated his training contract.

Jeremy stated:

I approached the disclosure confidently as I knew what steps I had to take. I appreciate the great advice I’d been given at a really difficult time.

 

Lessons

This case highlights how being very clear about what you need to disclose will enable you to do it more confidently, giving just  enough information for an organisation to make an informed decision without it coming across as making an excuse.

Links

• Becoming a solicitor

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.

Kevin contacted our helpline as he needed some help applying to a website to request the removal of a story about himself which included details of a conviction that is now spent.

Kevin told us that over the course of a year, he had made approximately three or four requests to the organisation to remove the story. He told us that some of the information relating to him was inaccurate but there was also a lot of other incorrect personal information which concerned other members of his family. At the same time as making the requests to the organisation, Kevin had also applied to Google to have links to the story removed. Every application he had made had been refused.

Kevin had assumed that over time, the article would be buried under other internet content but this hadn’t been the case and his name appeared in the top three of the list when anybody searched for him. Kevin was keen to find out from us what else he could do to get the story taken down.

We explained to Kevin that getting articles removed from a media source can be difficult as organisations will often use ‘public interest’ as a reason to keep a story online. The organisation that Kevin was dealing with had a policy which stated that it would ‘not remove any article from its digital archive, any more than it would remove anything from its hard copy archive’.

We advised Kevin that any report which contained inaccurate or misleading information should be amended and that he should write to the organisation to specifically request that the information be changed. If this was refused, then Kevin should make a complaint to the Independent Press Standards Organisation or the Information Commissioners Office.

As it is often difficult to get organisations to remove stories completely, we advised Kevin to apply again to Google to have the search links removed. We provided him with a copy of our search engine removal request template which sets out the pertinent information that applicants should include in any request, in particular, why the search result is ‘irrelevant, outdated or otherwise inappropriate’.

We suggested that if Google refused his application again then Kevin make a formal complaint to the Information Commissioners Officer who are in the process of looking for ‘evidence of damage and distress to individuals’ caused by Google’s (and other search engines) refusal to remove search links.

Kevin contacted us a couple of weeks later to let us know that following a further request to Google, they had agreed to remove the links to his name.

Kevin stated:

Although ideally I would have liked the story removed from the site altogether this is the next best thing.

 

Lessons

This case highlights how difficult it can be to get media organisations to completely remove stories from their websites. However, the next best thing is to make an approach to the search engine provider (for example Google) and ask them to remove any links to your name. This means that unless somebody has the details of the website on which your name appears, they will not be able to find anything about you by simply searching on your name.

Links

Unlock’s search engine removal request template

Unlock’s list of important links and organisations

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.

Evan contacted our helpline after losing his teaching job as a result of a conviction for assault.

He explained that he wouldn’t have classed himself as a violent person and in all his years of teaching, he had never lost his temper with any of his pupils. He had always been well thought of by both students and parents and had achieved excellent academic results for his school.

His conviction had come about following an argument with his son which had got out of hand. He explained that he had pushed his son out of sheer frustration and accepts that in hindsight, he had been too heavy handed. The incident had been witnessed by his former partner who had reported him to the police.

Evan explained that he was ashamed and embarrassed by his actions and although they’d had no long lasting adverse effect on his relationship with his son, he was distraught at the thought of never being able to teach again. He told us that he was totally committed to teaching and didn’t have the skills or experience to do anything else. As every job he applied for in this field required him to have an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service check, this meant that he would always need to disclose his conviction and Evan didn’t feel that he could bring himself to discuss this with an employer.

We asked Evan to consider some of the positives about his situation, namely that he hadn’t been placed on the children’s barred list and could therefore still legally work as a teacher, and also that he had a lot of transferable skills that he could utilise in other types of work. Although many schools can be risk adverse when considering employing somebody with a conviction, there is no blanket ban on people with convictions being teachers.

We confirmed that Evan’s situation with regards the disclosure of his conviction was unlikely to change for several years (and would be subject to the law changing) and so if he wanted to continue teaching in a school/college etc. he would need to overcome his embarrassment and start considering how he would go about disclosing his conviction. We provided Evan with some advice around disclosure plus information around volunteering and self-employment to give him ideas for other avenues which he may want to consider.

Evan contacted the helpline several months later to say that he had set himself up as a private tutor. Word had got around that he was no longer able to teach at the school, but he had been approached by a couple of parents who had asked him whether he would be prepared to give private tuition to their children. They were aware of his conviction, and based on the advice given to him by Unlock, Evan had then spoken with his union and probation officer and realised that this could be a option for him. He has since sourced the relevant insurance and has just started to ‘market’ his services. Evan explained that he always offers his clients the opportunity to see (or have a copy of) his latest DBS certificate before they book any lessons with him. To date, he has not been asked to provide this to any parent which, he believes, is due to his being well known to them.

Evan stated:

Teaching is all I’ve ever done and when I was sacked I was at a loss to know what I was going to do in the future. Speaking to somebody at Unlock made me realise that I did have other choices’.

Lessons

This case highlights how it is possible to continue doing the same job but doing it in a different way. Becoming self-employed can often overcome the barriers of disclosing to employers and their approach to criminal record checks.

Links

• Things to think about if you’ve got a criminal record and are looking to become self-employed

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.

Bernadette contacted our helpline desperate for any help we could give her around her employment situation.

In the early 1990’s Bernadette received a conviction for theft. She was convicted of two separate offences and, despite being very young at the time and this being her first offence, it resulted in a prison sentence.

Bernadette explained the type of work she did and how these jobs always needed a Disclosure and Barring Service check. She said that as she knew her conviction would show up on the check, she either disclosed it on the application form or at interview. If she disclosed on the application form, she’d often hear nothing back, despite feeling that she had the necessary skills and experience. When she disclosed at interview, she was often told that her application could not be progressed or simply that she had been unsuccessful.

Bernadette had read on our website about filtering and thought that as her conviction was over 20 years ago, this would be a great help to her in securing a job. She explained that she still felt hugely embarrassed and ashamed about her past and as a result of the number of refusals she’d received, her self-confidence had taken a real knock.

‘I just don’t know how many more times I can apologise for my past. All I want is a chance to be a proper tax-paying member of society’

 

We explained to Bernadette that sadly due to having received a prison sentence and being convicted of more than one offence, her conviction wouldn’t currently be eligible for filtering. We explained that there were probably a couple of options open to her:-

1. She could consider using her skills and experience to move into a different line of work – something that would only require a basic criminal record check where she would not need to disclose her conviction, or
2. Remain in the same type of job but look at different ways of presenting herself in a more positive light.

We felt that Bernadette should concentrate on the second option and should start by thinking of all the positives she could say about herself – her skills and experience in her specific work field, previous exemplary work record and no convictions or cautions since 1993.

We suggested that if she found it difficult to talk about her conviction, she should consider using a self-disclosure statement which would incorporate the above and would hopefully counterbalance her very old conviction which appeared to have been causing her problems. Bernadette could either use the statement as a prompt to discuss her conviction at interview or, could hand it over to the employer for them to read.

We explained to Bernadette that many people have made mistakes in their youth. She had accepted her punishment from the court but it was now time to stop ‘apologising’ for the past and use it to demonstrate how far she has come since then.

We spoke to Bernadette several weeks later when she rang us to give us an update. She told us that she’d applied for a job and, despite there being a question on the application form about cautions and convictions, she took our advice and avoided the question altogether.

She was invited to attend an interview and, at no time was she asked about any cautions/convictions. Again, she thought back to the conversation with the helpline advisor and decided not to say anything at this time. Bernadette said:

‘My natural instinct was to bring up my previous conviction but I decided to try out the advice I’d been given by Unlock and said nothing’

 

Within a couple of hours of leaving the interview the HR Manager rang Bernadette to offer her the job. At that point, Bernadette asked if she could arrange a face to face meeting as there were some outstanding points she needed to discuss. She took along her self-disclosure letter and, using it as a prompt, Bernadette again highlighted her skills and experience and went on to explain her conviction, how it had come about and what she had achieved since then. Bernadette told us:

‘I decided to arrange a meeting with HR and I declared all – in the way that I’d been advised to. To my absolute delight, they are still keen to employ me and I start on Monday. Thank you for your help’

 

Lessons

Generally our advice is to disclose when you’re asked. However, sometimes, disclosing at a different stage can work out better. This case shows how not disclosing on application, and instead waiting until further down the line, can work better for some people – especially those with old and/or minor offences.

Links

We have guidance on self-disclosure statements on our information site.

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.

Patricia contacted our helpline for advice after her employer had threatened to suspend her for non-disclosure of her criminal record.

Patricia told us that she had been employed by her present company for approximately 3 years. Knowing that her convictions would show on her Disclosure and Barring Service check, she disclosed them to her line manager at her interview. She recalled that she’d had quite a long conversation about her past and was pretty sure that her manager had made some notes about it.

As part of her company’s employment practices, all eligible employees were required to have a new DBS check every three years. Patricia told us that she hadn’t been worried about this as she knew there wasn’t going to be anything different on her certificate. However, her line manager had called her into his office to tell her that her DBS check had come back showing three convictions which they said they had been unaware of and it was likely that she would be suspended whilst further investigations were carried out. Patricia was devastated by the news – she’d always had an excellent employment record without any kind of disciplinary action and, her convictions were almost 40 years ago.

We asked Patricia whether she had any proof of her disclosure. She told us that she thought she’d ticked the ‘Yes’ box on the application form and she remembered her line manager taking notes at her interview but she knew that she hadn’t put anything in writing herself.

We tried to reassure Patricia that it was not a foregone conclusion that she was going to be suspended or sacked and, even if this was the eventual outcome, she did have some employment rights. We advised her to arrange a meeting with her line manager at which time she should highlight that:-

• She had disclosed that she had a conviction by ticking the ‘Yes’ box on the application form.
• She was able to recall disclosing the nature of her conviction at interview and felt sure that notes had been taken.
• Reiterate that her conviction was almost 40 years ago, she’d had a clean record ever since and there had been no complaints about her work or performance in the previous 3 years.

We asked Patricia to get in touch with us if her company did decide to suspend her and we would look at what extra support we could provide her with.

Several weeks later Patricia contacted us again to let us know that following our advice, the HR department had accepted that she had previously disclosed her conviction and that they would not be taking the matter any further.

Patricia stated:-

‘When I initially rang Unlock, I was in a total panic. I wasn’t able to focus on anything other than being suspended and sacked. The advisor took the time to listen to me and set out my options in a really logical way. Unlock gave me the confidence I needed to deal with the situation’.

Lessons

When applying for a job and disclosing a criminal record, we advise applicants to keep a record of what they’ve disclosed as this can be useful in the event of a dispute further down the line.

Notes about this case study

This case study relates to Unlocks helpline.

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

Alisha contacted our helpline as she needed some advice around disclosure prior to an interview that she’d been invited to attend.

Alisha explained that she had received a caution for shoplifting approximately 13 years ago and, due to the nature of her work, she had always needed a DBS check. Her caution had always shown up on the certificate and she’d made the decision therefore to always disclose at the earliest possible opportunity. This had resulted in a mixture of results – some positive and some negative.

In her previous job she had disclosed her caution at interview and successfully secured the job. Her employer told her that although it had made no difference to them, they appreciated how upfront and honest she had been.

Alisha said that she’d contacted us a few months previously and had been told that under new legislation, her caution would be eligible for filtering and that she had no need to disclose it for jobs requiring a basic, standard or enhanced check.

Alisha told us that this latest job was her dream job – she really wanted it. However, she was very worried about answering questions about her caution and didn’t feel that she could bring herself to essentially ‘lie’. She thought that in the circumstances, she would be better off telling the employer everything.

We advised Alisha that as her caution would be filtered and would not show on a DBS certificate then she had ‘the legal right to lie’. We explained to her that in the past, voluntary disclosure had worked well for her and it could be that this new employer would deal with her disclosure in the same way. However, there was always a chance that they could withdraw the job offer and there would be little that Alisha could do.

The helpline advisor that spoke to her said that if he were in her shoes, he would not disclose.

Alisha contacted us a week or so later and told us that the interview had gone well. The employer did ask her a question about any cautions/convictions but Alisha told us that she had ‘managed to stay strong and answered “No”. She’d just received a phone call from the employer letting her know that she had been successful.

Alisha stated:

‘I really can’t thank Unlock enough for the help they gave me. If I hadn’t called you before my interview I would definitely have disclosed my caution, even though I didn’t have to. I’ll never know what would have happened if I had told them but when Unlock planted the seed that the job offer could be withdrawn, I knew it was too big a risk to take’.

Lessons

Although it’t true to say that many people disclose their criminal record and an employer is willing to look beyond it, often they won’t, and as an applicant it’s difficult to judge in advance. This case shows the value to taking advantage of the legal position – if you don’t have to legally disclose, our advice is normally that you shouldn’t.

Links

We have practical guidance on to disclose or not to disclose on our information site.

We have practical guidance on the filtering process on our information site.

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.

Anne contacted our helpline when she was looking for advice and support around an Appeal Hearing she was going through with a university.

Anne had been studying for a PhD; her research being based around the effects of long prison sentences on young people. She’d completed her oral examination (subject to some minor corrections) in late 2013 and a submission date for the completed thesis was set for early 2014.

During the course of her study, Anne was arrested and charged with conspiracy to supply drugs, assisting an offender and perverting the course of justice. Her trial started before the submission date of her thesis and the anxiety and stress arising from this meant she was unable to submit her thesis at the appropriate time. Anne was convicted and sentenced to a custodial sentence in the spring of 2014.

Anne told us that during her time in prison she’d been able to reflect on the past. She’d moved to an open prison and started a voluntary role and, as a result of these positive changes, Anne started to look to the future and began to consider what she would do upon her release.

Deciding that her future may lay in academia, Anne, with the help of family and friends, set about completing the corrections to her thesis and updating it to reflect changes to legislation.

Given the amount of time that had passed, it was necessary for Anne to reapply to the university for readmission. At this time, it was necessary for her to disclose her criminal convictions and, as a result of this disclosure, she was told that her application needed to go before the Student Conduct Council who would consider the relevance of her criminal record.

Anne told Unlock that she was prepared for some reluctance from the university. She felt they may put conditions upon the acceptance – i.e. not allowing her onto the university campus or not awarding her the PhD whilst she remained a serving prisoner.

Anne awaited the result from the panel which, when it arrived, gave the following decision:

To expel her from the university with immediate effect meaning that she would no longer be eligible to be registered for a programme of study, or to be awarded a degree or to reside in university accommodation.

Anne was devastated by what appeared to be a particularly harsh and permanent decision. Although her convictions would become spent at some point in the future she believed that the university were not just punishing her for her past mistakes, but fixing this punishment for life.

Anne decided that she would appeal the university’s decision and due to the university’s clear focus on her criminal record, decided that she would contact Unlock for some additional help and support.

The university’s letter to Anne stated that:-

A PhD represents a senior membership of the university in a world-renowned department. Given the circumstances of the case, it would be inappropriate for you to continue.

Anne felt that this comment alone demonstrated that the university’s decision was not made purely on any element of risk but on the reputation of the university. She felt strongly that if all universities were to take this approach, then everybody with a criminal conviction would be excluded from gaining an education.

We helped Anne’s appeal by writing a letter of support to the Student Conduct Panel. This highlighted the value of education and the very unlikely publicity which would result from awarding the PhD since any media interest in Anne’s case would have significantly waned.

The Student Conduct Committee met early in 2015 and in their written reply to confirm their decision, they stated:-

Having considered all of the additional evidence presented to this Committee of Appeal that the original Committee were not able to consider, this Committee has not been able to find any additional evidence of mitigating factors that would allow the Committee, within its limited powers, to reduce the penalty. The Committee recognises the positive steps that you have taken with your rehabilitation and the trust that you have earned since the start of your custodial sentence, however, this provided no further evidence in terms of mitigating factors for consideration in relation to an appropriate penalty to reflect your actions that led to the conviction, which in turn led to the breach of regulation. It is very unfortunate that there has been an additional consequence of this penalty for you but the Committee can see no evidence that the University should change its view that your actions and the level of criminal activity undertaken were sufficiently serious to terminate your membership of the University, whatever the consequences may be of that decision. The Committee takes the view that the penalty of expulsion from the University remain an appropriate penalty.

This issue was of particular interest to us because in November 2014, we had responded to the review of education in adult prisons led by Dame Sally Coates. One of the points that we had highlighted was that good work done by individuals to educate themselves in prison and the risk that this comes crumbling down due to the attitudes and practices of further education and higher education providers in the community towards people who have been in prison.

Although Anne had studied for five years for her PhD prior to going into prison, the attitude of her particular university adds weight to this point. Anne had already completed the majority of her study and the award of her PhD was, in this instance, more of a bureaucratic process.

Lessons

Although Anne’s case has not ended well, we felt it was important to draw attention to this case in the hope that it will add to the evidence base of poor practice by universities in dealing with criminal records.

Links

Our response to the review of education in prisons can be found here.

Practical information on applying to universities is available here.

Notes about this case study

This case study relates to Unlock’s case work.

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

Mia contacted our helpline for some advice about travelling abroad whilst on licence.

Mia told us that she was currently on licence for two years having been released from prison several months previously. Since her release from prison, Mia had been regularly doing charity work and had secured a place at university.

She explained that her brother had recently become engaged and was due to get married in India in the summer. He had been a huge support to Mia during her trial and she was desperate to attend his wedding not only to celebrate with him but to try to rebuild relationships with other members of her family who had been affected by her conviction and time in prison.

Mia told us that she had developed a good relationship with her Probation Officer, sticking rigidly to all restrictions and requirements placed on her. So she was surprised when having discussed informally the prospect of travelling to India, her Probation Officer had given her a categorical refusal. Mia asked us whether she should accept this decision or whether it would be worth her making a formal application.

We explained to Mia that one of the standard conditions on a licence was:-

Not to travel outside the United Kingdom unless otherwise directed by your supervising officer (permission for which will be given in exceptional circumstances only) or for the purpose of complying with immigration/deportation.

 

As there was guidance as to what constituted ‘exceptional circumstances’, we believed it would be worth Mia making an application in writing.

We provided Mia with details of the criteria that Probation Officers should consider when taking into account requests for travel abroad (of which there are 6) and explained to Mia that her application letter should address each of these separate points. The guidance states that:

If the answers to questions 1 to 5 are “no” and question 6 is “yes”, then it can be considered that an offender has met the requirements to qualify for temporary travel overseas.

 

We set out to Mia the process of appealing a decision if her application were to be declined.

Mia took our advice and addressed each of the points set out in the guidance.

A couple of weeks later, Mia got back in touch to let us know that her application had been approved and that she would be travelling to India in the summer.

Mia stated:

I wrote my letter and addressed all the points that Unlock told me I should. I couldn’t believe it when I was given permission to go. It’s really important to me that I’m able to be there to support my brother as he’s supported me in the past. Thanks to Unlock, I’ll be able to do that.

 

Lessons

This case shows the importance of having a clear understanding of the criteria that Probation Officer’s should consider when taking into account requests to travel abroad. It also demonstrates how requests in writing can often be harder for a Probation Officer to refuse.

Links

There’s information on travelling abroad whilst on licence on our self-help information site.

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.

Jamie contacted our helpline after discovering that details of his spent conviction flagged up on the internet when he searched for his name.

As he’d been looking to set up his own business, Jamie was extremely worried that if potential customers and suppliers were to carry out informal searches on him, then they would no longer want to work with him or may view him differently.

Legally, Jamie hadn’t needed to disclose his conviction for the previous six months because it was now spent and had felt very positive about the future. However he told us of the shock he’d felt when he’d seen details about himself on Google and had started to believe that his business could be doomed even before it had got off the ground. Jamie asked us for advice about what, if anything, he could do.

We advised Jamie that as his conviction was spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, that he should use the ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union and apply to Google to have all search links to his name removed.

We explained to Jamie that he would need to put together a list of the URL links for each link appearing in a Google search. He would then have to explain why, in his opinion, the search result was “irrelevant, outdated or otherwise inappropriate”. We offered to read through any document that he put together if he felt that this would be useful.

With a little input from us, Jamie sent a letter to Google as well as one to the owners of the website that the actual article appeared on.

After a couple of weeks, Jamie received responses back from both Google and the website stating that they were happy to remove his links from the internet.

Jamie stated:

Thanks to the information and advice given to me by Unlock, when I do a search on my name now nothing comes up. I feel that I really can now move forward with my life and not have to worry.

Lessons

This case shows that if you have a conviction which is spent under the ROA, you really have nothing to lose by applying to Google to have search links removed.

Links

There’s information on the so-called ‘google effect’ on our self-help information site.

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.

Connor posted on our forum asking for information and advice from other forum members about a problem he was having with a University application.

Connor had applied to study at university disclosing his unspent conviction at that time. Shortly after his application he received notification from the university stating that as his offence was ‘serious’ the university would not be able to offer him a place. Connor explained that the course was a post-graduate one, attended by over 18’s with no work placement involved.

Connor had carried out a lot of research online and reviewed the university’s admissions policy and felt that it may be possible for him to appeal the decision. However, he wanted to know whether other forum members thought it would be worth him taking this further.

On seeing the post, one of Unlock’s helpline advisors responded asking Connor to contact the helpline directly. This would enable us to find out more about his conviction and the circumstances surrounding it and allow us to provide him with more personal information and advice.

A few hours later, Connor got in touch with us directly. On listening to the details of his conviction and the disposal he received, we immediately encouraged him to lodge an appeal with the university. We suggested that his appeal should highlight:

• how education and training are acknowledged as one method of reducing re-offending and social exclusion
• that the Government have recognised that re-offending rates are too high but to give individuals a realistic chance of desisting from crime, they need skills and knowledge and learning is therefore a priority.

Connor agreed that he had nothing to lose by appealing the university’s decision and asked whether we would review any letters he wrote to them.

The university came back to Connor informing him that in light of the information he had provided, they would reconsider his case after carrying out a full risk assessment. One month later, the university asked to meet with Connor and again he turned to the forum for advice. He wanted to know if anybody had any experience of these types of interviews, what would a ‘risk assessment meeting’ involve etc. We encouraged Connor to be relaxed, open and honest and let the university “see the real Connor”.

Connor regularly updated the forum on progress with the appeal and eventually was able to post that his appeal had been successful.

Connor stated:

Great news. I found out this morning that the Vice Chancellor of the University has granted my appeal and I’ve been offered a place on the course starting in September. Many, many thanks to you all for posting and encouraging and also to Deb S at Unlock who helped review my appeal before I sent it off.

Lessons

This case shows that if you are provided with an opportunity to appeal against a decision that you believe to be unfair then its worth doing so. Your situation may be reviewed by somebody who’s happy to give people with convictions a second chance and, if the outcome doesn’t ultimately go in your favour, at least you’ll have done everything you can to present your ‘side of the story’.

Links

There’s information on applying to university on our self-help information site.

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.