Newspaper lied about me?

dacouch

cmacca wrote: »

How on earth did the employer find the article ?, you said it was 2009, I am a recruiter I don't go looking for newspaper articles on candidates esp from 3 years ago, it all sounds very odd to me. Oh and they cant refuse to employ you for this, if they need you to have a clean history ie working with the vulnerable etc they need to do a formal CRB check on you.

They probably googled something like "Bob dob court conviction"

whatmichaelsays

You would have grounds for a claim against the publisher if what they published exposed you to hatred, shame, disgrace, contempt or ridicule, injured your reputation or caused you to be shunned or avoided. If a prospective employer has said that they won't employ you on these grounds, then you have grounds for a claim against the published.

However, it is not cheap. Legal aid is not available for defamation claims and the costs associated can be astronomical.

Esqui

http://www.pcc.org.uk/complaints/form.html

They say they don't generally accept complaints for stories over 2 months old, however - if the story is still online, then they will.

Gavin83

Surely you would have some sort of claim against a potential employer if they denied you a job based on something which wasn't true? An employer has to give fair reasons for giving the job to someone else and that reason being a criminal conviction that doesn't exist isn't a fair reason. Of course proving this is the reason is another matter.

fluffnutter

Gavin83 wrote: »

Surely you would have some sort of claim against a potential employer if they denied you a job based on something which wasn't true? An employer has to give fair reasons for giving the job to someone else and that reason being a criminal conviction that doesn't exist isn't a fair reason. Of course proving this is the reason is another matter.

No, they don't. They don't have to give a reason at all. Provided they've not turned you down due to...

gender
marriage or civil partnership
gender reassignment
pregnancy and maternity leave
sexual orientation
disability
race
colour
ethnic background
nationality
religion or belief
age

... they can choose whichever reason they like. The rehabilitation of offenders act might be more appropriate here in that you're not entitled to seek information about a spent conviction, but, even so, that's not what's really happened. They've decided, albeit based on inaccurate information, that he's a bad apple. That in itself is not illegal.

The OP has grounds for complaint against the newspaper, however.

DVardysShadow

patman99 wrote: »

The employer probably paid the Scout Assocciation to run all the candidates names through it's clipping service.
The S/A has every local and national daily/weekly/monthly paper in the country delivered to them. They then look for articles in which a person is either aquited of a crime, or is mentioned to have a criminal record. They then add the article to their database, along with a scan of it.
This is then made available at a cost to anyone to use.

This is where I think it came from. Scout Association may be in breach of the data protection act here - certainly would be if they are alerted and continue to supply this information.

I think that it would be very sad if the Scout Association were found to victimise both people who are helping others overcome their criminal past and people who themselves are trying to overcome that past on the bais of a positive news story.

paddyrg

I would suggest contac ting the paper to publish an apology (then fw that to the potential employer), or follow up with http://www.rjw.co.uk/legal-services/media-libel-privacy/do-i-have-a-claim/ (or similar) if the paper refuse

WhiteHorse

bob_dob wrote: »

So no point in taking action against the paper then?

Taking action against the paper will cost a fortune and will probably occupy your spare time for the next couple of years. And that's if any solicitor will touch your case without cash up front.

Again, the best way to hit the newspaper is with Data Protection. The have you on their records and the information is inaccurate.

antrobus

WhiteHorse wrote: »

Taking action against the paper will cost a fortune and will probably occupy your spare time for the next couple of years. And that's if any solicitor will touch your case without cash up front....

... unless they take the case on a 'no win no fee' basis. It worked for Chris Jefferies. Stating that someone has a criminal record when they don't is clearly defamatory, and (in this case) has resulted in an identifiable loss. Open and shut case if you ask me. (Which of course you shouldn't, as I Am Not A Lawyer.)