Maryam contacted our helpline for information and advice after a caution which had been filtered by the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) was disclosed as police intelligence on her enhanced DBS certificate.

She explained that in 2013 she had received a caution for ‘Falsely representing self to possess a qualification in nursing/midwifery’. The caution had arisen after a nursing agency Maryam had been signed up with had accidently sent her to a job which required a registered nurse despite Maryam not being officially qualified to carry out all of duties asked of her.

She had recently applied for a job as a healthcare assistant and had been told by the police that they believed it was necessary for her filtered caution to be disclosed as ‘police intelligence’ on her enhanced DBS certificate.

The helpline advisor explained to Maryam that she should dispute the disclosure of the information with the police and if the police refused to remove it, then she she challenge the disclosure through the DBS Independent Monitor. The advisor highlighted some of the things which Maryam should include in her letter to the police, namely that some of the information disclosed was factually incorrect which Maryam could evidence.

Maryam sent her letter to the police and contacted Unlock several months later to say:

“Great news, the police have finally removed the information from my enhanced DBS certificate. Thank you so much for all your support and advice, it’s really appreciated.“

Lessons

Although we are aware that the police can disclose filtered cautions/convictions if they believe they are relevant to the job an applicant is applying for, this was the first time we had seen this happen. As Maryam had evidence to show that some of the information was factually incorrect, we felt it was important that she challenged the disclosure with the police.

Links

• • Practical information: Disclosure of police intelligence on enhanced checks (approved information)
  • Practical information: Enhanced disclosure
  • Practical information: Criminal records that don’t show (stay) on standard and enhanced DBS checks

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.

Published July 2021.

Jaxon contacted our helpline as he was finding it difficult to get public liability insurance due to his unspent conviction.

Jaxon explained that he had several convictions which he’d received as a youth which had led to fines and community orders. However, his last conviction had resulted in a four-year prison sentence.

Whilst in prison, Jaxon attended as many education courses as he could one of which was a barbering course. He was sure that this could lead to a job or self-employment on his release from prison. However, despite having the funding in place to open his own shop, he was struggling to find an insurance company that would offer him a suitable insurance policy.

The helpline advisor gave Jaxon the details of Unlock’s list of insurance brokers.

Jaxon contacted Unlock several days later and stated:

“I called a couple of the brokers on the list and very quickly got a really competitive quote from one of them. Thanks to Unlock I’m on the road to fulfilling my dreams of having my own business as a barber.“

Links

• • Practical information: List of insurance brokers

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.

Published July 2021.

Donald contacted our helpline looking for some information and advice relating to a risk assessment panel his employers had asked him to attend.

Donald explained that he had been working in a management role for the NHS for two months. However following receipt of his enhanced DBS certificate which had disclosed his two convictions (one from 2002 and one from 2012) he had been asked to attend a risk assessment panel. Donald was keen to find out what type of questions he might be asked and, whether the NHS could dismiss him from his job.

He went on to explain that he hadn’t disclosed his convictions to his employers during the recruitment process as they were both spent and he believed that they would be carrying out a basic DBS check. He stated that although he was employed by the NHS his job involved the management of supplies going into two hospitals with his office being based almost 4 miles from the hospital premises. He visited each hospital once a year to carry out an audit and never had any contact with patients.

The helpline advisor asked Donald to provide her with a copy of his job description and, having read through it, confirmed that the job would only require a basic DBS check. The advisor provided him with links to our information on eligibility, and explained that as the job was covered by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act the NHS appeared to have carried out an ineligible DBS check.

The advisor recommended that Donald speak with his Line Manager or the HR department highlighting how the NHS may have committed a criminal offence under the Police Act by undertaking an ineligible DBS check. They may also have breached the General Data Protection Regulations by obtaining and processing information relating to spent convictions which was likely to be considered ‘excessive’ if the position was not covered by the ROA Exceptions Order.

Several weeks later, Donald contacted the helpline again with an update. He had attended the risk assessment panel meeting and raised his concerns that an ineligible DBS check had been carried out. He provided the panel with a copy of Unlock’s eligibility information as well as guidance produced by the NHS which supported Donald’s opinion that his role would only be eligible for a basic DBS check

Donald stated:

“After the panel had read through all the information I’d presented to them, they agreed that a mistake had been made and that an enhanced DBS check wasn’t necessary. It was agreed that no further action would be taken and I was free to leave and get on with my job.

I’m so grateful to Unlock for the advice and support given and for making me look at my problem from a different perspective.”

Lessons

Establishing the correct level of DBS check can cause confusion for employers, especially those who regularly recruit for roles working in regulated activity. However, as this case demonstrates it is the job role which dictates the level of check being done and not the employer an individual is working for.

Links

• Practical information: Criminal record checks for employment
• Practical information: Eligibility for standard and enhanced DBS checks
• Practical information: Challenging an ineligible DBS check

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.

Published March 2021.

Omar contacted our helpline for some information and advice following receipt of a letter from the DBS stating that they were considering adding him to the adult and/or children’s barred list.

Omar explained that in the late 1990’s when he was aged 14 he had been convicted of sexual activity in a public place. He went on to say that this had been consensual with his same-sex partner who was 11 months older than him. He was aware that at that time several of his friends had been convicted of similar offences and it had always felt as though the charges were being used to persecute gay and bisexual men.

Omar told the helpline advisor that since that one conviction, he had never been in trouble and was well respected by his family, friends and work colleagues. He had recently applied for a new job working in an administrative role in a children’s hospital and although he wouldn’t be working in regulated activity, his new employers had applied for an enhanced DBS check which he understood they were allowed to do.

He was confused, concerned and upset to learn that the DBS were considering adding him to one of the barred lists and stated:

“The letter from the DBS made me relive something that happened 24 years ago and I feel just as I did then that I’m being persecuted for being a gay man.“

The helpline advisor explained that applications for enhanced checks can often lead the DBS to consider whether, due to a previous conviction, an individual should be included on one (or both) barred lists. However, before the DBS could include someone on a list, they had to establish that the individual has been, or might in the future be, engaged in regulated activity with children or vulnerable adults.

The advisor went on to say that if Omar did nothing then the DBS would automatically add him to the barred list and it was important therefore that he submit his representation to them. She provided him with a link to Unlock’s information on making representation and highlighted some of the things that Omar should include, namely:

• That his conviction was 24 years ago and the fact that he has had a completely clean record since then.
• Details of his career to date and if possible, a professional reference.
• Although his job would be based in a children’s hospital, he would not be working in regulated activity and has no intention of doing so in the future.
• That he poses no current or future risk to children or vulnerable adults.

We contacted Omar 3 months later for an update and he told us:

“I got a response form the DBS following the formal representation I made. They’ve told me that no further action will be taken and that they’re happy for me to work in regulated activity if I wish to do so. Thanks Unlock for all the help and support you’ve given me over the last few months”.

Lessons

As our helpline advisor explained to Omar, the DBS will often send individuals a ‘minded to bar’ letter following receipt of an application for an enhanced DBS check. Although this can often be seen as a standard administrative process, if you don’t make representation you may find that the DBS will automatically add you to one (or both) barred lists meaning that you can’t apply for or work in regulated activity for the foreseeable future.

Links

• • Practical information: Barring (Children’s Barred List and Adults’ Barred List)
  • Practical information: DBS Barring – Representations, reviews and appeals

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.

Published March 2021.

Asher contacted our helpline for advice on getting online information about his conviction removed.

He explained that his conviction was almost 20 years old and was now spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. However, anybody who searched for his name online would very quickly find out about his conviction for theft which had resulted in a short prison sentence.

Asher stated:

“The media reports from that time make for really uncomfortable reading and portray me as a thoroughly heinous individual. I know it’s been written in that way to sell the story but I’ve become aware recently that employers do informal checks on potential applicants using the internet and I know I’d never get an interview let alone a job if an employer were to read this.“

The helpline advisor explained that following a ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union in May 2014, individuals could request the deletion or removal of personal data published online, often referred to as ‘the right to be forgotten’.

The advisor told Asher that he could apply to Google to have the links to his name removed using their online application form. He would need to provide Google with the URL link for each site on which his name appeared and then explain why the search result was ‘irrelevant, outdated or inappropriate’. The advisor gave Asher a link to a template document which he could use as the basis for his application to Google.

Asher got back in touch with Unlock a couple of weeks later to say:

“Google have removed the URLs relating to my name and spent conviction. I’m incredibly grateful for your advice and delighted by the action taken by Google as well as being surprised at how quickly it was resolved”.

Lessons

As this case demonstrates, Google will often remove links to your name very quickly if you are able to demonstrate that your conviction is spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and that it is no longer relevant or appropriate for it to remain online.

Links

• • Practical information: The ‘google effect’, internet search results and the right to be forgotten

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.

Published March 2021.

Terry contacted our helpline from prison seeking help to open a bank account prior to his release.

He stated that he had initially applied to NatWest Bank for a current account approximately one year ago. NatWest had refused his application as their qualifying criteria stated that individuals needed to be within 6 months of release from prison before an account could be opened. He had applied again in August 2020 but to date had heard nothing.

Terry told the helpline advisor that he was due to be released from prison just before Christmas and, without a bank account he would not have access to any money during the Christmas holidays. With Covid infection rates increasing, and parts of the country likely to go into some form of lockdown, he was becoming increasingly anxious and starting to think that remaining in prison was preferable to release. Although Terry had tried on numerous occasions to get information and advice from the prison, the Covid pandemic meant that there was very little opportunity for him to be out of his cell and, the limited numbers of staff available meant that his case was not considered urgent.

Our helpline advisor explained that up until 2014, Unlock had ran a 9-year project, working with prisons and the banking industry, to better enable those in prison to open a bank account. At that time, the prison Terry was in had a banking arrangement in place with HSBC and our advisor suggested that Terry ask his personal officer or a member of the resettlement team for details of how to apply for an account with them. Alternatively, Terry could consider opening an account with a local Credit Union and we provided him with details of one closest to the prison.

Several weeks later, Terry got back in touch with the helpline to say:

“Thanks to you guys I’ve got a new bank account and I can now start to look forward to being home for Christmas.”

Notes about this case study

1. Terry was supported by Unlock’s helpline.
2. We have practical guidance on opening a basic bank account before release.
3. Names and details have been changed to protect the identity of those involved.

Noah contacted our helpline to find out how he could get a caution removed from his criminal record.

Noah explained that he was in his second year at university studying for a degree in health and social care. He had scored highly in his first year exams and was looking forward to going into his 2nd year. However, prior to returning to university whilst on a night out, he and a group of friends had been involved in an incident outside a nightclub as they attempted to try and stop a fight.

Noah told the advisor:

“We didn’t know the two guys who were fighting but one was a lot bigger than the other and it looked as if he might get badly hurt. One of the club bouncers called the police and even though the fight was nothing to do with us, we were all searched and the police found a small quantity of cannabis on me. I was taken to the police station and received a caution.”

Noah immediately contacted his university to disclose the caution and within days had received a letter informing him that they intended removing him from the course.

Noah told the helpline advisor that when he accepted the caution, the police officer had told him that it was just a ‘slap on the wrist’ and he had no idea of the impact it would have on his future career. He wanted to know what he needed to do to have the caution removed from his criminal record.

The advisor explained to Noah that by accepting the caution he had admitted his guilt which made it extremely difficult to request that it later be deleted. However, the police are required to follow a series of steps before a caution is issued which includes explaining the implications of accepting one. Any failure to comply with these steps could give rise to a legal challenge; this can however be difficult to prove.

The advisor suggested that it may be worth Noah trying to appeal the university’s decision and discussed with him the procedure for doing this and what to include in any appeal letter. The advisor recommended that he mention that his caution would be filtered off his standard and enhanced DBS check after a period of 6 years and was unlikely therefore to stop him working in the health and social care field.

A month later Noah contacted the helpline with an update. His appeal had been successful and he was back on the course.

“I can’t thank Unlock enough for the advice they gave me. When I initially rang, I felt my only option was to try to get the caution removed. I now know that my chances of this happening were slim and I really appreciate the advisor being so honest with me and offering me a different route.” 

Notes about this case study

1. Noah was supported by Unlock’s helpline.
2. We have practical guidance on universities, colleges and education.
3. Names and details have been changed to protect the identity of those involved.

Grace contacted our helpline seeking advice around a DBS check which, was being carried out by a potential employer.

She explained that approximately 3 years ago she had received a caution for child neglect and had been placed on the children’s barred list by the DBS. She went on to say that, having been offered a job as a functional skills tutor in an adult education college she was dismayed to discover that the college intended carrying out an enhanced and barring DBS check. Grace told the advisor:

“I’ve got no problem in disclosing my caution, in fact I’ve already done that. I had assumed that as I would be working with adults I would only need a basic DBS check. Being on the barred list means that I would be breaking the law if I applied for a job working in regulated activity with children and I’m really worried that the college will ask for a check of both the adult and children’s barred lists.”

The helpline advisor asked Grace to provide him with a copy of the job description and, having read through it, confirmed that the role would only require a basic DBS check. He provided her with links to our information on eligibility, which she could share with the college together with details of how to challenge an ineligible DBS check. The advisor explained to Grace that when applying for jobs covered by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act which only require a basic check, there was no need for her to disclose her caution.

Several weeks later Grace contacted the helpline again with an update. After arranging an appointment with the college HR department, Grace had provided them with a copy of Unlock’s information as well as the online DBS eligibility checker. On reviewing the information, the college accepted that the role was only eligible for a basic check and apologised to Grace for their mistake. They promised to delete all information they held which related to her caution.

Lessons

Many employers become confused when trying to establish the correct level of DBS check they need to carry out and it is good to see employers like this who are willing to reconsider their decisions around eligibility and put things right when they get it wrong.

However, this isn’t always the case and, had the college gone ahead and applied for an enhanced with barring check this could have had serious consequences for Grace who would have been acting unlawfully by applying for a job working in regulated activity when barred.

Notes about this case study

1. Grace was supported by Unlock’s helpline.
2. We have practical guidance on eligibility for standard and enhanced checks and challenging an ineligible check.
3. Names and details have been changed to protect the identity of those involved.