Fraser contacted Unlock after encountering lots of employment rejections since he had received a driving conviction 5 years ago. He worked in healthcare and found it really hard to understand how his conviction related in any way to his work. Prior to the conviction, Fraser had always been successful in any interview he attended but his confidence was now at an all-time low.

Many of the rejections he had received were from the NHS and Fraser couldn’t see any hope for the future if they wouldn’t employ him especially as they are the largest employers of healthcare staff in the UK.

We suggested that the next time Fraser attended an interview, he ask for feedback if he wasn’t successful. It may not be as a result of his conviction that he was being refused. We provided Fraser with some information around disclosure and also provided him with some advice on interview techniques. We were also able to confirm that Fraser’s conviction would be filtered from standard and enhanced DBS certificates from 2021.

Fraser took on board the advice given to him and contacted NHS Professionals, a specialist organisation within the NHS who recruit temporary staff for positions throughout the UK. Fraser explained the circumstance surrounding his offence and reassured the agency that it was a one off offence and he would be no risk to patients or colleagues.

NHS Professionals accepted Fraser on to their books and he has successfully completed several temporary jobs with them. He is currently undertaking a long term placement which he believes may ultimately lead onto a permanent position.

Fraser said:

“Speaking to Unlock made me realise that the rejections may not have had anything to do with my conviction. The stuff I read on the Hub made me think about different ways of disclosing and gave me the confidence to apply to NHS Professionals”

Notes about this case study

This case study relates to Unlock’s Helpline.

Important links relating to this case study include information on disclosing to employers and the filtering process.

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

David wrote to us after reading in the problem pages of a newspaper about somebody whose son had just been released from prison and, as a result, their home insurers didn’t want to renew their insurance. He contacted us, knowing that, due to his recent conviction, he was in a similar situation.

We provided him with a copy of our detailed guidance on insurance and convictions, along with our latest list of insurance brokers. He called us to ask us a couple of follow up questions, which were relating to his specific situation, and specifically when he no longer had to declare his conviction (i.e. when it became spent). He then went away to contact the various companies on the list.

He called us back a week or so later to tell us that he had managed to find insurance with a particular company on the list. He said:

“I’m really pleased to have managed to find insurance with a respectable company at a reasonable price. It was only £5 a month more than what I was previously paying. Shopping around for insurance can reap its rewards.”

Notes about this case study

This case study relates to Unlock’s Helpline.

Important links relating to this case study include information on insurance.

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

In 2009, the case of arson victim Michelle Hooley made front-page national news. A short and tumultuous marriage led to her request for divorce. When her estranged husband burned down her house, her insurers saved the day.

After 18 months in temporary accommodation with her children, an anonymous phone call informed the insurer that, four years before taking out the policy, Hooley had received a £150 fine for “unknowingly providing incorrect information to the benefits office”. She had never been to court and the police had not been involved. It never occurred to her that she should inform her insurers.

Yet, as a result, her policy was voided. Her insurer began proceedings against her to recover £240,000 and refused to pay the final tranche of £40,000 to the contracted builders for completed works.

That’s when she contacted Unlock. We worked with Michele, making sure she had the support of a lawyer who could help her make a strong application to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). Ultimately, though the insurer’s legal position was secure, the FOS’s applied their broader standards which meant that the case was settled out of court.

Notes about this case study

This case study relates to Unlock’s Helpline.

Important links relating to this case study include information on insurance.

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

Jenny contacted Unlock after she’d made a claim on her insurance:

“My car was stolen a year or so ago and my house was damaged as they smashed the window to steal the car keys. As a result, I had to have my locks changed overnight. I put in a claim to my insurers. The car insurance company paid out on the car no problem. However, my home insurers were more difficult. I made a claim for £235 for the locks and window replacement. As part of their routine questions at the claim stage, they asked whether anybody in the house had any criminal convictions. I told them that my husband had a conviction, which I had told my broker about when I had took the insurance out. I never concealed any kind of information from them, always answering questions honestly and openly.

 

They said that they had to go away and check, and came back saying that they didn’t have any record of my husband’s conviction, and that because of non-disclosure of a material fact, they were not paying out. I couldn’t prove my side of the story. They refunded all premiums paid from the point of renewal after when my husband got convicted. However, they also said that a previous claim that I had made, for around £1800 for a burst pipe in the bathroom, was also now void. They said that, because they were refunding my premiums, it amounted to me owing them £40. As a goodwill gesture, they said that they would not make me pay this. That really is like a slap in the face.

 

I now had to look for insurance. I was getting refused from everybody. Nobody seemed willing to look at our circumstances. Why should I be punished just because my partner has a conviction? Luckily, I managed to find insurance with the help of Unlock.”

Fortunately for Jenny, she’d followed our advice of getting proof of any disclosure you make to an insurance company. She came back to us a few months later with an update:

“With hindsight, things could have been a lot worse. 3 months into this new policy, I had to make a substantial claim against my property due to damage caused by subsidence. Fortunately, my insurance was able to cover me. However, if it hadn’t been for the help of Unlock, I would be left to foot the bill – all because my husband made a silly mistake.

 

Insurers should look at each individual’s circumstances before tarnishing everybody with the same brush. I accept that they may not want to insure somebody with a record of fraud, but at the moment they just refuse to cover anybody.”

Notes about this case study

This case study relates to Unlock’s Helpline.

Important links relating to this case study include information on insurance.

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

Brenda contacted Unlock about problems she was having with her insurance:

“About 4 years ago, my partner was sent to prison for a couple of months. When he came out, we wanted to get our lives back together, which, although not easy, we have managed to some extent.

 

However, recently, my husband dropped a plate on our ceramic cooker. I rang the insurer to see if we were covered, and they said we were. They asked a couple of questions, including whether any of us has any criminal convictions. I answered yes, as I had told the broker when we took out the insurance. They said that they had no information about convictions. I told them I had told the broker, but I didn’t have any evidence to back this up. They turned round and said they wasn’t paying out, and that they were cancelling our insurance. The claim was for £500. I have tried to argue this, but I seem to be getting nowhere. I know I told my broker – I wouldn’t have been that stupid to lie but then tell the truth when claiming.

 

I then had to look for alternative insurance. I contacted another company, and disclosed my partners conviction over the telephone. They said they would note it on the policy. I took out the policy, and received the papers through a couple of days later. Having taken a look through the policy documents, next to the conviction question it said “no”. I rang them and, despite them saying that they have recorded my partners conviction, they had no record of this. They proceeded to tell me that they would be cancelling our insurance and only gave me 14 days to find alternative insurance. How can an insurer say one thing one minute then go do the opposite the next. If I hadn’t checked, we would have been paying for insurance that was completely null and void.

 

I am now looking to find alternative insurance. I have been to Unlock who have provided me with a list of insurers who may be able to help. However, I suspect that, because I don’t recognise any of the names, they will be more expensive. It is not fair”

Notes about this case study

This case study relates to Unlock’s Helpline.

Important links relating to this case study include our information on insurance.

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

Ivan contacted Unlock for some support. He had received a conviction for common assault following an argument with his wife and had received a two year community service order.

Ivan had been married for 19 years and had a 16 year old son. The marriage had not been happy for some time and the conviction arose after he pushed his wife who had been continually tormenting and goading him. She immediately telephoned the police and went on to make a statement alleging continued domestic violence. Ivan maintained that he had always been a good husband and a good provider and his family wanted for nothing.

Since his conviction, his wife’s treatment of him had become worse. She had turned his son against him, took most of his money and made him carry out most of the household task. If Ivan refused, she threatened to go to the police and report him for further instances of domestic abuse. Ivan had attempted suicide and stated that he was close to a mental breakdown. He could see no way out of his situation as, due to lack of money and no family or friends, he was unable to move out of the family house.

We asked Ivan if he believed himself to be a victim of domestic abuse. Ivan agreed that he had never thought about it before, but he probably was. Ivan was desperate to move out of the family home but simply could not afford to do so. He had been working for the same company for 18 years and they had stood by him throughout the court case. Ivan knew that he was a loyal and hard-working individual but one of the reasons his organisation had supported him was that although he was very skilled he was substantially underpaid, earning about £15k per annum. He was unable to see how his situation was ever likely to improve especially now that he had a criminal conviction.

We suggested that he contact Mankind, an organisation working with men suffering from physical and mental abuse from partners. They also advised that there were many organisations who would be able to see beyond Ivan’s conviction and would be happy to have somebody with the skills he had work as part of their team. The advisor provided Ivan with options of when and how to disclose his conviction.

It took Ivan a couple of weeks to contact Mankind but he has been in regular contact with them and they have been a great source of both practical and emotional support. As his confidence increased, Ivan started applying for jobs and was invited to attend several interviews. In the course of one week, Ivan was offered 3 jobs with salaries between £27k and £35k. He contacted us again as he wanted to talk through the 3 options and seek some advice on how his conviction would be presented on his basic disclosure certificate.

Ivan did not pick the organisation which paid the most but the one which is internationally recognised with great future career prospects.

He is still living in the martial home but with his increased salary, believes that he will shortly be able to look at moving out, even if this means that he will just be renting a room.

Ivan said:

“When I first rang Unlock, I was really desperate, I’d even tried to kill myself. My wife had made me feel like a total failure and I lived in constant fear of being re-arrested by the police. The lady on the Helpline was really understanding and seemed to recognise that I was a victim as much as my wife. I applied for quite a few jobs and got no reply and then suddenly I started to get interviews and before I knew it, 3 job offers. Live is good for me again and can only get better. Thank you Unlock.”

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.

Neil was working for a security company when his licence expired. He was shocked when the Security Industry Authority refused to renew it after changing its policies so that it no longer employed anyone who had been in prison for more than 24 months. Neil had a three-year prison sentence dating back 28 years.

“It was something that I did when I was really young,” he says. “I thought because I had lost my licence I wouldn’t get any more work. I went to the Citizens Advice Bureau and they put me in touch with Unlock.”

Unlock provided advocacy and helped Neil make submissions when the case went to court. He won the case, got his license back and won half his court costs.

“I wouldn’t have won the case without Unlock’s help.”

Notes about this case study

This case study relates to Unlock’s advocacy.

Important links relating to this case study include our information on working in the security industry.

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

Adam and his wife had recently applied to be adoptive parents. In the last eighties, he had been convicted of using threatening language and fined £75.

Until 2009 old and minor convictions such as this could be ‘stepped-down’ by the police and so were not disclosed on an enhanced checks. As a result, Adam didn’t disclose his conviction because he understood it wouldn’t be necessary.

However, at the point that Adam applied, this process of step-down had been removed, meaning that the enhanced check highlighted the conviction. His application was refused because he had not disclosed his criminal record.

Adam came to Unlock at the appeal stage. Unlock wrote him a supporting letter, explaining how the change in the law made it understandable that he didn’t disclose the information in his application, and alleviating concerns about his integrity. As a result, Adam’s appeal was successful, and he is able to continue in the adoption process and provide a stable and loving home for a child without parents.

Notes about this case study

This case study relates to Unlock’s advocacy.

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