I have a criminal record will the FSA approve me?

Wellery82

I can't offer any guidance as i don't know the ins and outs of the FSA.

It does always seem though the CRB system penalises many individuals who are looking to turn their life around. I feel it would be so much better if the test could only search for crimes relevant to a profession - ie in this case fraud/dishonesty etc, with the employer being unaware of any spent convictions not related to the job. How an assault a decade ago has any bearing on a role in financial services is beyond me.

More and more companies seem to request CRBs under the bracket that people are in charge of important information etc, when in reality there isn't really solid grounds for them to have a check. My personal opinion is that those companies who adopt a solid "any criminal record do not consider" are throwing away great talent, and people who really want a chance to prove themselves

Good luck to the original poster by the way

Uncertain

Jimavfc82 wrote: »

I can't offer any guidance as i don't know the ins and outs of the FSA.

It does always seem though the CRB system penalises many individuals who are looking to turn their life around. I feel it would be so much better if the test could only search for crimes relevant to a profession - ie in this case fraud/dishonesty etc, with the employer being unaware of any spent convictions not related to the job. How an assault a decade ago has any bearing on a role in financial services is beyond me.

More and more companies seem to request CRBs under the bracket that people are in charge of important information etc, when in reality there isn't really solid grounds for them to have a check. My personal opinion is that those companies who adopt a solid "any criminal record do not consider" are throwing away great talent, and people who really want a chance to prove themselves

Good luck to the original poster by the way

I broadly agree.

However, to play devil's advocate, you could easily argue that a conviction for assault is very relevant in any occupation, particularly if there is contact with the general public.

"but my lord, the company took him on knowing full well that he had a conviction for violence and now, due to their negligence, my client has suffered.........."

Wellery82

Uncertain wrote: »

I broadly agree.

However, to play devil's advocate, you could easily argue that a conviction for assault is very relevant in any occupation, particularly if there is contact with the general public.

"but my lord, the company took him on knowing full well that he had a conviction for violence and now, due to their negligence, my client has suffered.........."

I take that on board but still think if a conviction is spent, then in effect that is saying the individual should be rehabilitated - there is always a risk with any conviction it will happen again, and it may impact in the role the individual takes.... however there also has to be a line to identify the best point in managing that risk and also helping to rehabilitate offenders and get them back into work

tigeress289

In short, your offence is "spent", you do not have to declare it and it will not show up on a normal CRB check. If it were enhanced, it would. People do not understand the Rehabilitation act, as the word itself should have been, "disclosure". This is being changed through a new bill to amend "disclosure" times. Never judge a book by its cover. Reading the paper today, the tv chef, Decampo, served 2 years for burglary. The OP has a clean sheet since offence, good character in my books. Most so called do gooders, dont know real life. I totally agree with one poster who points out that anyone can get into trouble and dont think for one instance the Police have a clue of what they are doing. Some are the worst thieves around.
You dont have to declare it.

Bonam25

tigeress289 wrote: »

In short, your offence is "spent", you do not have to declare it and it will not show up on a normal CRB check. If it were enhanced, it would. People do not understand the Rehabilitation act, as the word itself should have been, "disclosure". This is being changed through a new bill to amend "disclosure" times. Never judge a book by its cover. Reading the paper today, the tv chef, Decampo, served 2 years for burglary. The OP has a clean sheet since offence, good character in my books. Most so called do gooders, dont know real life. I totally agree with one poster who points out that anyone can get into trouble and dont think for one instance the Police have a clue of what they are doing. Some are the worst thieves around.
You dont have to declare it.

Thanks a lot for posting, and I wish you were right, but unfortunately I DO have to disclose it:(
The 'Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, has certain exclusions, and the Financial Services Authority (FSA) can ask about 'spent' convictions as well as 'unspent' ones, and 'spent' convictions MUST be disclosed. Whatsmore, they are entitled to do a 'standard' or 'enhanced' CRB check, both of which detail 'spent' & 'unspent' convictions.

Yorkie1

Bonam25 wrote: »

Thanks a lot for posting, and I wish you were right, but unfortunately I DO have to disclose it:(
The 'Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, has certain exclusions, and the Financial Services Authority (FSA) can ask about 'spent' convictions as well as 'unspent' ones, and 'spent' convictions MUST be disclosed. Whatsmore, they are entitled to do a 'standard' or 'enhanced' CRB check, both of which detail 'spent' & 'unspent' convictions.

You are correct Bonam25 and tigeress289 is incorrect, unfortunately.

DVardysShadow

Jimavfc82 wrote: »

I take that on board but still think if a conviction is spent, then in effect that is saying the individual should be rehabilitated - there is always a risk with any conviction it will happen again, and it may impact in the role the individual takes.... however there also has to be a line to identify the best point in managing that risk and also helping to rehabilitate offenders and get them back into work

Whereas presumably, with an unconvicted person there is no risk?

Wellery82

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Whereas presumably, with an unconvicted person there is no risk?

Obviously there is a risk as i am sure you are aware