Introduction

This page brings together the difficulties faced by people with criminal records (PWCRs) as a result of Covid-19 and social distancing measures. We’ll keep this page under review as we learn more about the issues people are facing.

We ran a survey from May to June 2020 to find out how people were being affected. Read the findings here.

We will use this evidence to call for solutions. We included survey findings, along with evidence gathered from our helpline, in our briefing to the Justice Select Committee. Read the briefing here.

For practical advice please see our information page on Covid-19

Enforcement of lockdown rules varies by region

It’s not unusual to see regional variations in punishment and this is no different for Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) for lockdown breaches. For example North Yorkshire police were 26 times more likely (per head of population) to issue FPNs than police in Staffordshire, while police in Dorset were 4 times more likely to issue FPNs than police in Hampshire.

Disproportionate numbers of black and Asian people fined and/or arrested for breaching lockdown rules

Recently published analysis shows that police forces are  up to six times more likely to issue FPNs to people of black, Asian or minority ethnicity than to white people. This may be partly explained by FPNs issued to non-residents – for example people travelling away from the city or visiting local beauty spots.

This doesn’t explain the uneven impact in London, where black people were more than twice as likely as white people to be issued FPNs for breaching lockdown rules. London’s population is made up 59% white groups, 12% black groups and 18% Asian groups. 46% of FPNs were issued to white people, 26% to black people and 23% to Asian people.

Black people were also disproportionately more likely to be arrested for breaches making up 31% of arrests compared with 38% for white people.

Lockdown breaches charged incorrectly

The first CPS review of cases brought under the Coronavirus Act found that all 44 had been incorrectly charged. 12 of the cases brought under Health Protection Regulations had also been charged incorrectly. The most recent review found a further 25 cases that had been charged incorrectly.

Court delays mean children are left with adult criminal records

In November 2019 the Guardian reported that court delays meant hundreds of children were being convicted and sentenced as adults. Children aged 10-17 would normally have their cases heard in the youth court which is better equipped to meet the needs of young defendants. By February 2020 delays in the youth court had already reached record levels. Since mid-March courts have suspended non-urgent hearings and most children will find their case has stalled. This is likely to increase the number of children who are convicted and sentenced as adults.

Sentencing in the youth justice system is primarily about rehabilitation and there are options that are not available for adults. Children who appear before the court after their 18th birthday will no longer have these options available to them. They will be sentenced as adults and their conviction will take twice as long to become spent. For example, a child who received a fine would have to declare it for 6 months. A child who, as a result of court delays, was convicted and sentenced as an adult, would have to declare the same fine for 12 months. This can create significant disadvantage for young adults who are applying for college or university, for car insurance or their first job.

The Youth Justice Legal Centre (YJLC) have published a report on delays, time limits and video link hearings for children.

The Ministry of Justice  and Youth Justice Board to monitor delays in the youth court and investigate ways  to ensure children whose cases are delayed are not saddled with an adult criminal record.

Finding a new job when unemployment is higher

The lockdown restrictions will have a disproportionate effect on people in temporary jobs and on zero-hours contracts. Many will now find themselves out of work. With fewer businesses predicted to be hiring in the next few months, PWCRs could find themselves overlooked.

Finding a new job is more difficult for PWCRs. About 75% of large employers ask about criminal records on application forms. 75% of PWCRs say they would avoid applying for a job where they were asked about criminal records on application. Generally, people don’t believe they’ll be treated fairly – and with good reason. 50% of employers say they would reject an applicant who declared a criminal record.

Food producers, supermarkets and other essential services are boosting their workforce. Applicants with a spent conviction won’t need to disclose it for these jobs. However, they may find the employer uses open source information – online news, or social media posts – to find out about their criminal record. Recruiters will usually ask about unspent convictions and sometimes have blanket bans on applicants with unspent convictions.

Employers who proactively recruit PWCRs report positive experiences, citing loyalty and reliability. Others recognise employment as key to reducing reoffending. People who can support themselves and their families are contributing to society and the economy. Without employment opportunities, people are forced to rely on the state. 1 in 3 Job Seekers’ Allowance claimants in 2010 had a criminal record. The cost of reoffending is £18bn a year.

As we look to an uncertain economic future, we can’t afford not to include law abiding people with criminal records. Government will need to consider how to support fair recruitment for people with criminal records at a time when unemployment is likely to be higher than in recent years.

Changing motivations for employers

Companies actively recruiting PWCRs do so for many reasons:

• HSS had difficulties with recruitment and retention.
• Halfords wanted to ensure a truly diverse workforce
• South Tees Hospitals NHS Trust aimed to develop opportunities for the local community.

The sudden loss of so many jobs means more people will be looking for work and some businesses may no longer have difficulty attracting applicants. This could lead to discrimination against PWCRs. On the other hand, skills shortages and retention difficulties are more complex than simply the number of applicants. The care sector has carried significant vacancies for the last few years. Thousands of agriculture jobs were filled by EU nationals who have either left or may be affected by the planned new immigration rules. Jobs in these sectors are not automatically more attractive to people who find themselves recently redundant from the airline or hospitality industries.

Employers should look to include people with criminal records in their business. Not because it’s socially responsible (though it is). Not because it helps make communities safer (though it does) but because recruiting reliable and loyal workers is essential to rebuilding the British economy.

DBS checks

The Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) are providing two new services to support the response to Covid-19. The first is standard and enhanced checks free of charge for eligible roles. The second is fast-track checks of the barring lists within 24 hours. Prospective employers will receive confirmation that the applicant is not on the barred list and an enhanced certificate will be provided in time. These checks can be requested for voluntary or paid roles provided they are eligible.

These models create possible problems for applicants with criminal records. Free of charge checks may lead some employers to carry out higher level checks for ineligible roles, meaning people with cautions or spent convictions are at risk of being unfairly excluded from employment.

Fast-track barring checks could lead to problems later on where employers become aware of criminal records when the full check comes through. We’d like to think that an employee’s performance to date would be taken into account but employers tend to be risk averse. While most people with criminal records are not barred, we regularly see people with old and minor cautions and convictions rejected by health and social care employers.

The DBS’s approach raises questions about the existing ‘barring AND disclosure’ model. If a person is barred from regulated activity, a decision has been taken by the DBS that they are unsuitable for this work. If they are not barred, the person’s criminal record is shared with the employer to make a second decision around suitability.

The changes could signal an opportunity to rethink this approach, drawing on international comparisons. For example Spain uses the barring test as the only test of suitability for regulated roles, where employers need only seek confirmation that an applicant is not barred.

The DBS have responded quickly to the needs of some sectors and introduced these changes. It’s disappointing that they have not moved as quickly to bring the filtering rules in line with the law.

Applying for university this year

Although UCAS no longer collect criminal records information for all courses, some universities do. Courses leading to regulated professions – including medicine and teaching – require applicants to disclose criminal records that are not yet protected.  We strongly encourage universities to carry out disclosure discussions in person. This gives applicants the chance to explain the circumstances and decision makers can ask questions and discuss concerns. While social distancing measures remain, we suggest the use of video conferencing facilities to enable applicants to take a full part in the assessment. This could remain an option in future for applicants who cannot attend in person.

Applying to university in the future

Universities face uncertainty in domestic and international admissions. This could be an opportunity for them to consider recognising students with criminal records as a widening participation group.

Housing

Prison leavers without a confirmed address will find it harder to source housing support due to office closures and remote provision of services.

People in approved premises and those in bail accommodation may find it harder to move on while social distancing restrictions remain in place. They will be isolated from friends and family and will be unable to access support services beyond those provided in-house. The lack of certainty may create or exacerbate anxiety and worry about the future and make a difficult transition even harder.

People on probation/licence

Calls to our helpline have identified some inconsistencies in the way that probation are currently delivering their services. This causes concern for individuals who are trying to adhere to their licence conditions and reporting requirements and avoid a potential recall to prison.

The inconsistency is, in part, due to the fact that 21 privately owned Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) work alongside the National Probation Service (NPS) to supervise people on licence or on community sentences. There has been no centralised guidance for people under CRC supervision. HMPPS have published a brief information sheet for those under NPS supervision.

People under supervision may be socially isolated as a result of social distancing measures and difficulties accessing support services.

People on the sex offenders register

There is a lack of consistency in arrangements across the country for dealing with visits to those on the register. At least one force has suspended all visits indefinitely, whilst others continue their visits unless an individual shows symptoms of Covid-19.

Police forces are under pressure and facing their own difficulties with staffing, but clear and accessible information to those who have reporting requirements will save effort in the long run. Provision of information should take into account restrictions on internet use – online information will be unavailable for many.

Latest

Are you looking to get a historical conviction for a consensual gay sex offence removed from your record? Get in touch – see below.

Also, you can see more news on this page, or sign up our mailing list to receive updates by email

The problem

The government introduced a statutory pardon for men with historic convictions for consensual gay sex offences. The pardon only applies to men who have successfully applied to the Home Office to have their conviction disregarded.

We are concerned about the accessibility of the disregard scheme and the appeal process, which does not appear to be meeting its intended aim of allowing the men in this situation get convictions removed from their records. The number of men who have applied under the scheme since it was introduced in 2012 is extremely low: according to information obtained by the Public Law Project (PLP) under the Freedom of Information Act, as at 7 June 2016 there had only been 320 applications, 83 of which have been successful. None of the unsuccessful applicants has exercised their right of appeal to the High Court.

We have concerns about the application process. Chris Bryant MP summed up the problem in his contribution to the Second Reading of Sexual Offences (Pardons) Bill in October 2016:

There is a real problem about trying to force people to go through another process. For someone now in their 70s or 80s, the conviction might have been like a brand on them for their entire life. It might have caused terrible problems in their family life. It might have meant that they were never able to do the job that they wanted to do, such as a teacher not being able to go back to teaching. Friends and relatives might have shunned them. It might have made them feel terribly ashamed. Why on earth would they want to write to the Home Secretary, asking, “Please may I be pardoned?” Why on earth would they want to go through that process all over again? Why on earth would they want someone to analyse whether they were guilty of something way back when?

We are also concerned that not all repealed gay sex offences have been included under the disregard scheme. For example, at the moment men convicted or cautioned for an offence under section 32 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (solicitation by men), cannot have their crime deleted because it was missed off the list of offences that could be disregarded in 2012. The government has acknowledged that it was used in a discriminatory way against gay men. Section 32 was used as recently as the 1990s to arrest men for simply trying to chat up another man in a public place, often in stings by plain-clothes police officers outside gay pubs. It was repealed in 2003 along with the gross indecency, buggery and other laws used against gay and bi men.

Clearly, people unjustly convicted or cautioned in this way should be able to delete that unfair conviction. The offence is categorised as a sex offence, and so a conviction or caution for this offence can be disclosed on a DBS check to employers indefinitely.

Background

The government committed in its manifesto to issue a pardon to everyone convicted under old offences like gross indecency, often used to target gay and bi men.

The Turing Bill sought a blanket pardon for all gay and bi men – living or deceased – in recognition of this injustice; the government’s response did not. It instead offered only an automatic posthumous pardon, leaving out thousands of gay and bi men who are still living. We agree with Stonewall that a pardon should be automatic for all those affected, including the 15,000 men still alive. This would exclude anyone convicted of offences that would still be illegal today, including non-consensual sex and sex with someone under 16, but would go some way to righting a significant wrong for many thousands of people.

Our position

The incredibly low numbers of people applying for their (now decriminalised) consensual gay sex convictions to be disregarded are sadly not surprising. The fact that people have to apply is a clear barrier to accessing justice. It causes people understandable anguish when faced with a Home Office form which forces them to show why their application should be granted for something that they might have felt branded and ashamed of for much of their life. It was therefore inevitable that few people would apply and the result is that the policy does not appear to be meeting its intended aim of allowing the men in this situation to get the convictions removed from their records. The disregard and pardoning schemes could easily be done proactively by the Home Office, and this would show the government to be committed to righting the wrongs of the past.

We believe the UK government should issue a general pardon to all gay and bi men who were prosecuted under these unjust laws.

This is a clear opportunity for the government to unequivocally make amends for the actions of past governments who instituted these laws. It is time for the government to apologise to all those affected, those convicted, and their loved ones.

The Police and Crime Act 2017, referred to at the time as ‘Turnings Law”, had the impact of posthumously pardoning thousands of gay and bisexual men. However, although it applies to those still alive, a pardon only applies to those who have successfully applied through the Home Office disregard process to have historic offences removed, and we know that the numbers of people that apply through this process is very low and the application process itself often acts as an unnecessary obstacle.

What we’re doing

We are supporting the work other organisations that are looking to challenge the accessibility of the disregard scheme and the appeal process.

Are you looking to get a historical conviction for a consensual gay sex offence removed from your record?

If you’re looking to get a historical conviction for a consensual gay sex offence removed from your record, but you believe the current process acts as a barrier – for example, you’re embarrassed to have to apply – please email the details (in confidence) to policy@unlock.org.uk.

Latest news

September 2019 – Alan Turing law: Gay, unjustly convicted – and now denied a pardon

February 2017 – ‘Turings Law’ takes effect to posthumously pardon thousands of gay and bisexual men

July 2017 – Blog – EastEnders, DBS checks and decriminalised offences

December 2016 – Amnesty for gay men convicted under outdated laws extended to Northern Ireland

November 2016 – George Montague, the 93-year-old activist, handed a petition into 10 Downing Street calling for an apology from the Government to the estimated 65,000 gay and bi men who, like him, were hounded and convicted under old discriminatory sexual offences laws.

October 2016 – Scotland to pardon gay men convicted under outdated laws – Holyrood’s justice secretary, Michael Matheson, told the chamber that the parliament would bring forward a Scottish “Turing law” to automatically pardon gay and bisexual men convicted of sexual offences that are no longer criminal.

October 2016 – Prisons Minister scuppers plans to given automatic pardons – Plans for a law in England and Wales to automatically pardon men convicted under obsolete laws relating to gross indecency with other men were scuppered by the Conservative justice minister, Sam Gyimah, after he spoke so long that the Bill ran out of time. Gyimah’s behaviour attracted cross-party condemnation after the private member’s bill, put forward by John Nicolson of the SNP, failed to pass to its next stage in the Commons. Nicolson’s bill would have given an automatic pardon to men convicted under the obsolete laws relating to gross indecency with other men. It would go further than an amendment to the policing and crime bill proposed by the government, which only pardons the thousands of men who are already dead, while the living will have to apply to the Home Office to get their convictions ‘disregarded’ before being pardoned. Ministers had earlier that week announced that that about 40,000 dead people will be pardoned, three years after a posthumous pardon was issued to the second world war codebreaker Alan Turing for the offence of gross indecency. But out of the 65,000 men convicted under the abolished laws, about 15,000 are still alive and will have to go through an administrative process in order to obtain a pardon.

View more news posts here. 

For more information

1. Practical self-help information  – We have guidance on removing historical convictions and cautions for consensual gay sex from criminal records on our information site
2. Discuss this issue – Share your views and experiences on our online forum

Latest

Court makes it clear – spent convictions shouldn’t be taken into account for housing applications

For more latest news, you can:

1. click here for a full list of news posts
2. sign up our mailing list to receive updates by email
3. follow the latest on Twitter using the hashtag #housingconvictions

The problem

Under the Localism Act 2011, local authorities and social housing providers have some discretion to exclude people on the grounds of “unacceptable behaviour”. As we cover on our information site, we’ve seen examples of local authorities filtering out people with convictions.

We want to understand more about if, and how, criminal records are having an impact on peoples’ ability to get, or indeed keep, social housing.

Background

Under the old rules, councils would not have been allowed to make a rule which would apply to all people with convictions, or to anyone convicted of a particular type of crime. Past decisions showed that each application had to be considered individually.

The government’s guidance on the new regime states the following (with emphasis added), “Housing authorities should avoid setting criteria which disqualify groups of people whose members are likely to be accorded reasonable preference for social housing…. However, authorities may wish to adopt criteria which would disqualify individuals who satisfy the reasonable preference requirements…for example, if applicants are disqualified on a ground of anti-social behaviour.

When deciding what classes of people do not qualify for an allocation, authorities should consider the implications of excluding all members of such groups. ”

On the surface, therefore, the requirement that each case be assessed individually seems to have been significantly watered down by the Localism Act 2011. Since that came into force, we’ve seen anecdotal examples of local authorities who have refused people who have any unspent conviction, regardless of nature or seriousness.

Has your criminal record made it difficult to access social housing?

The Localism Act 2011 gave local authorities and social housing providers some discretion to exclude people on the grounds of “unacceptable behaviour”. We’ve seen examples of local authorities excluding people with convictions for a range of offences.

As part of our work on housing policy, we want to understand more about if, and how, criminal records are having an impact on peoples’ ability to get, or indeed keep, social housing.
We’re gathering information and experiences to help us to better understand how a criminal record affects people when applying for social housing.

• Has your housing situation been affected by a criminal record?
• Have you been refused a tenancy or been evicted as a result of a criminal record?
• Have you come across any blanket policies being used by local authorities or housing associations?

What we need from you

If you have been excluded from housing due to your criminal record, contact us at policy@unlock.org.uk using the subject header ‘Call for evidence: housing’. Please include:

• Your name
• Contact details (email and telephone) and how you’d like us to contact you
• Details of your criminal record
• Details of your experience (please include the name of the housing provider and of any staff you spoke to, include emails/screenshots etc if possible)
• What you think should change
• Whether you’d be willing to take part in media coverage on this issue in future (this is for our reference only, we won’t share your details with others).

Any information you provide will be kept in line with our confidentiality policy. Any personal information provided to us will not be shared externally without your consent.

Find out more about how we handle your data.

Case studies

Court makes it clear – spent convictions shouldn’t be taken into account for housing applications

Andy – Having an application for social housing refused on the basis of spent convictions

Latest news

See the bottom of this page for our latest posts about this issue.

You can also find below the latest from Twitter, using the hashtag #housingconvictions (although we cannot endorse what gets displayed here).

#housingconvictions Tweets
// !function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+”://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js”;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,”script”,”twitter-wjs”); //

Latest

In September 2017, we published research that showed insurers were breaking the law by taking into account old criminal records.

In July 2019, the insurance industry trade body issued updated guidance to insurers on how they should treat people with convictions

We’re monitoring the questions that insurers use to ask about criminal records to ensure that they are not asking for, or taking into account, spent convictions.

For more latest news, you can:

1. see the posts at the bottom of this page
2. click here for a full list of news posts
3. sign up our mailing list to receive updates by email
4. follow the latest on Twitter using the hashtag #unlockinsurance

The problem

People with unspent convictions face difficulties in getting house and motor insurance.

Insurance companies regularly take into account convictions that have no relevance to the insurance being sought.

People with unspent convictions pay disproportionately more for their insurance.

Insurers fail to follow industry good-practice and are often misleading in the questions or assumptions they have, suggesting that people with spent convictions need to disclose these.

What we think needs to change

The insurance industry should update good practice and insurance providers should implement clear and consistent wording in relation to asking about unspent convictions.

Insurance companies should only take into account unspent convictions that are directly relevant to the specific type of insurance.

Mainstream insurers should develop systems that better enable customers to provide details of their unspent conviction so that individual considerations can be made.

In addition insurers should:

1. Follow good practice when asking about criminal records (including Unlock & ABI guidance).
2. Review their policies to ensure that they are consistent with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.
3. Ensure that their customer services staff are trained on the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and have access to internal guidance that enables them to respond to queries raised by customers.
4. Ensure that they make it clear to applicants that they only have to disclose unspent convictions (and/or do not have to disclose spent convictions).
5. Provide advice and links on how applicants can find out if their convictions are spent.
6. Not rely on assumptions about criminal records and instead should ask a clear question about unspent convictions.
7. If they exclude people with unspent convictions, make this clear to applicants and create links with specialist providers to ensure that customers with convictions are treated fairly
8. Stop using police records as part of any checking process (as this has been a criminal offence since March 2015).
9. Honour claims if they did not make clear the need to declare unspent convictions at the point of taking out the policy.

What we’ve achieved

1. We’ve developed practical guidance and a list of insurers that provide a variety of insurance to people with convictions.
2. We’ve secured important reforms to insurance disclosure law.
3. We made significant progress through our Unlocking Insurance project.

What we’re doing

1. We’re monitoring the questions that insurers use to ask about criminal records to ensure that they are not asking for, or taking into account, spent convictions.
2. We continue to push the insurance industry to use evidence-based risk-pricing models and treat people with convictions fairly.

Latest news

Insurance industry trade body issues updated guidance to insurers on how they should treat people with convictions (July 2019)

Press release: Insurance companies are breaking the law by taking into account old criminal records (September 2017)

The way insurers lock out people with court convictions is bizarre (February 2016)

Criminal Convictions & Insurance – Briefing for Insurers (January 2016)

See the bottom of this page for more latest posts about our work on insurance.

You can also find below the latest from Twitter, using the hashtag #unlockinsurance (although we cannot endorse what gets displayed here).

#unlockinsurance Tweets

The facts

1. At least 750,000 people have unspent criminal convictions and struggle to get cover
2. 86% of former prisoners find it harder to get insurance because of their criminal record
3. Four-fifths of former prisoners say that they are charged more for insurance because of their criminal record
4. Critically, we have never seen any robust evidence for the claim that correlates criminal records and higher risk. Quite the opposite. The specialist brokers that work quietly behind the scenes have some of the best claims ratios of all of their customers.

Working with insurers

Through working with insurers, we help to make sure that they treat people with convictions fairly. A selection of case studies are below:

• Helping an insurance broker update their guidance for people with convictions
• Insurance comparison sites must ensure that the questions they ask are relevant and only related to the people on the insurance policy
• Insurance brokers must ensure that any guidance they use to assist their customers is clear and does not provide misleading advice or information
• Bookshop potentially undertaking ineligible DBS checks 
• Misleading statement on an insurance company declaration form

If you’re interested in working with us, please get in touch.

Case study – John

John was convicted of attempted murder in 1971. He got a life sentence. He’s been out of prison for nearly 30 years. But when he discloses that conviction to insurance firms, they refuse to cover the contents of his flat.

“In 1971, I was attacked and I retaliated a couple of weeks later. I was convicted of attempted murder. I got a life sentence. I was 23 years old.

“In 1986 I had a stroke and was discharged from prison and came to live here. I’ve lived here a number of years, and I can’t get household contents insurance. I’ve tried many times but because I answer the question “do you have any criminal convictions”, because I put “yes”, I’m declined insurance because they say that thee sentence isn’t spent. Well, it can’t be spent because I’m on life parole. So, the only way I can get insurance is to lie, but if I do lie and they find out, I’ll have paid money for years, possibly for nothing, becuase they will find any excuse not to pay out, and that would be a valid reason because I hadn’t answered the question truthfully.

“I just feel like I’m still being sentenced. I’m vulnerable because I’m now getting on; I’m 72 years of age. I would feel comfortable if I could have household contents insurance; I just want to insure the few bits and pieces I’ve got.

“I’ve been to a broker. The housing authority offer household insurance but they declined to insure me. I’ve been to Aviva, I’ve been to Direct Line. None of them will insure me because I have an unspent conviction. There are several politicians that have been to jail for fraud yet their convictions will be spent. Well mines never spent because it was a life sentence.

“How can I integrate with society if I can’t have household contents insurance. I feel like I’m missing. I think I should be treated as everyone else. I have been almost 30 years out of prison. I can get car insurance. I get travel insurance. Why can I not have household contents insurance? And why should I pay a higher premium? I think I should be treated just as Joe Bloggs in the street is treated, who’s 72 years of age, living in a local authority property and just gets on with life.”  John

This case study is taken from a contribution to Radio 4’s Money Box in 2014 which was about insurance and convictions and which featured a contribution from Unlock.

Case study – Paul

Paul came out of prison after serving a 4 month sentence for theft. Luckily for Paul, he was able to move back home with his dad. Stable accommodation is a key factor in reducing the risk of people re-offending.

Unfortunately, his dad didn’t realise the impact his son’s criminal record would have on his buildings insurance. When he came to renew his policy, he saw the details he’d provided about people living in the property – he’d previously said nobody had any unspent convictions. That had changed since his son returned home. When he told his insurers, they said they could no longer insure him and wouldn’t renew his policy. Suddenly, without buildings insurance, his mortgage
was at risk.

Paul’s sentence for theft was technically unspent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and would remain that way for a further two years after the end of his full sentence. Major home insurers take a blanket policy towards people with unspent convictions – they simply don’t offer insurance to people with unspent convictions, without any consideration of how relevant it is.

When Paul got in touch with the Unlock helpline, it advised him where he stood. It informed him that his dad would need to disclose his son’s conviction while it was unspent and while he was still living there. Unlock also provided him with its list of specialist insurance brokers who can help people in these types of situations. When Unlock spoke to Paul a couple of weeks later, he said:

“I’ve finally been able to find insurance for my dad’s house through Unlock’s list. We’ve had to pay quite a bit more, but at least we’ve got something. At one point my Dad was really worried that he was going to have to throw me out the house as he didn’t want to take the risk with his mortgage. I was never told anything about the problems around insurance when I left prison, and I don’t see why it makes a different to my dad’s insurance.”

Case study – Paula

Paula was convicted of an overpayment of benefits 6 years ago. She was given a 4 month suspended prison sentence. The conviction became spent around three and half years ago, because under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, that sentence becomes spent 2 years after the end of the 4-month sentence.

“Pretty much straight after my conviction, we had to renew our home contents insurance, and our existing insurer refused to renew it because I told them of the conviction. The only companies we ended up being able to get quotes from were specialist brokers that specifically helped people with unspent convictions.

“When I was originally convicted, nobody told me when my conviction would become spent, or what that would mean at that point. So for the last 3 years, I’ve been continuing to use specialist brokers for my insurance.

“Recently, I tried to get a quote online through the Post Office, but I ticked the box about convictions because they asked “Has anyone in the property ever been convicted…?” – I thought the right answer was “yes”, because I had, and they were unable to give me a quote.

“It wasn’t until I spoke to Unlock that they told me that my conviction was now spent and that I didn’t need to tell insurance companies anymore. Two weeks ago, I went and got a quote from Admiral. They made it clear that they only needed to know about unspent convictions, so I could confidently answer “no” to that without feeling like I was doing anything wrong.

“Why don’t insurers make that clear when they ask you the conviction question on the quote form? For the last couple of years, I feel like I’ve been paying over the odds with specialist brokers when I could have been using mainstream comparison websites and getting a much better deal.” Paula

Other case studies

Jane Roe – I am being punished for something I haven’t done – Insurance problems for family members

Our publications

Insurance providers & criminal records – Research into the questions asked (September 2017)

The way insurers lock out people with court convictions is bizarre (February 2016)

Criminal Convictions & Insurance – Briefing for Insurers (January 2016)

Written submission to the Financial Inclusion Commission (November 2014)

Time is Money – Financial responsibility after prison (with the Prison Reform Trust) (October 2010)

Ensuring Positive Customer Experiences of Buying Insurance Online (with ABI) (December 2009)

Unlocking Insurance Impact Report (January 2009)

Time served: unlocking insurance to help reintegrate offenders into society (in CII) (October 2008)

Report for the ABI Working Party on Access to Insurance (January 2008)

Insurance: Issues & Evidence (June 2008)

Insurance Case studies (June 2007)

Other useful publications

Insurers’ Approach to People with Convictions and Related Offences – An ABI Good Practice Guide (July 2019)

The missing piece in the financial inclusion debate? Improving access to household insurance (Financial Inclusion Commission, November 2017)

Access to Financial Services in the UK (FCA, May 2016)

For more information

1. Practical self-help information for people with convictions on insurance – We have guidance on insurance on our information site
2. Guidance for insurers – We have guidance for insurers
3. Personal experiences – We have posts relating to insurance on our online magazine, theRecord
4. Discuss this issue – Share your views and experiences on our forum.
5. Project – Read more about our Unlocking Insurance project that finished in 2012

Latest

We’re working on individual cases that are brought to us, and also with the Information Commissioners Office to raise awareness and share examples of bad practice.

For more latest news, you can:

1. see the posts at the bottom of this page
2. click here for a full list of news posts
3. sign up our mailing list to receive updates by email
4. follow the latest on Twitter using the hashtag #misleadingquestions

The problem

Employers, insurers and others regularly ask misleading questions as part of application forms or interviews. For example, insurers often ask individuals to disclose “all convictions”.

What we think needs to change

Organisations need to be clearer about their responsibilities under the Data Protection Act and the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

Organisations should be brought to account for their failings.

What we’re doing

We’re working on individual cases that are brought to us.

We’re working with the Information Commissioners Office to raise awareness and share examples of bad practice.

Found details of misleading questions?

If you’ve come across examples of misleading questions by employers, insurers or others, please send us the details (in confidence – no personal details required).

Latest news

See the bottom of this page for our latest posts about this issue.

You can also find below the latest from Twitter, using the hashtag #misleadingquestions (although we cannot endorse what gets displayed here).

#misleadingquestions Tweets

Case studies

The links below are to examples of individual cases that we’ve worked on. 

Insurance comparison sites must ensure that the questions they ask are relevant and only related to the people on the insurance policy

Insurance brokers must ensure that any guidance they use to assist their customers is clear and does not provide misleading advice or information

Misleading question on television production company application form

Misleading statement on an insurance company declaration form

Misleading question on a support organisation’s referral form

Misleading declarations on a mortgage company’s application forms

For more information

1. Practical self-help information  – We have guidance on the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act on our information site
2. Guidance for insurers – We have guidance for insurers which includes suggested questions
3. Personal experiences – We have posts relating to misleading questions on our online magazine, theRecord
4. Discuss this issue – Share your views and experiences on our online forum