DBS Check shows 15 year old 'conviction' job at risk

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

Aretnap wrote: »

Not when you're applying for certain jobs which require a high degree of trust', eg the police, accountancy and jobs which involve working with children. The ROA does not apply in such cases and the OP had no right not to disclose the convictions. He doesn't say what the job is, but if it is one that requires an enhanced DBS check then it will be one which is exempt from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.

Yes, just been reading further on this. I note, though, " At the time the questions are asked, the person must be informed that they are obliged to disclose spent convictions."

It would appear that has not been the case.

(I'd also suggest that the ROA still applies, it is just that there are specific exemptions, just to be pedantic!).

therealhyper

IanMSpencer wrote: »

And they would be entirely wrong to do that.

The Rehabilitation Act last updated in 2014 gives you the legal right not to declare past convictions after a certain time, so the OP has not done anything wrong in not declaring these spent convictions which expired a decade ago.

They clearly will already know about it so it strikes me that the OP has two choices - ignoring it, or contacting them.

The fact that an enhanced security check reveals information that you are not required to reveal yourself would suggest that employers seeking that information are expected to take a considered view. Remember also that these are essentially minor convictions in the grand scheme of things. I doubt a transport employer would be overly surprised to see applicants with speeding convictions, and even the insurance conviction in the context of a 20 year old shouldn't necessarily be of concern 15 years on.

My conversation with them would be:

"Having seen my enhanced check, I see it has shown up some old spent convictions which I am not required to declare as they are spent. I was surprised that they appeared as they are spent convictions from a long time ago and I had not understood that the enhanced check also showed spent convictions. I hope that this information will not affect my employment, and I was not being deliberately misleading but was aware that I did not need to declare spent convictions when asked about these when seeking employment."

It is then up to them if they want to seek any information, but the applicant is entitled to simply say that they are long spent convictions and he would rather not discuss the circumstances except to say that he is embarrassed by his mistakes in the past and would hope that his subsequent record would speak for itself.

Hi and thanks for your comments, like most very helpful and considerate. I am drafting a letter to which I will send with the dbscertificate. Thank you

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

therealhyper wrote: »

Hi and thanks for your comments, like most very helpful and considerate. I am drafting a letter to which I will send with the dbscertificate. Thank you

I think I would amend my answer having looked up a bit more.

Assuming that the job is exempted, then I think I would have a think about whether any of the convictions are in any way relevant to your job. If it is, then you should explain it only if asked to, provided the questions are asked for "the purpose of assessing the applicant's suitability for the occupation, office or profession." I doubt anyone would want a 15 year old speeding conviction explained, but the insurance one probably might need clarifying (honestly).

However, given that you are supposed to be told to disclose spent convictions, I don't think you should feel guilty about not disclosing them.

facade

IanMSpencer wrote:

They clearly will already know about it so it strikes me that the OP has two choices - ignoring it, or contacting them.

They don't know until the OP shows them the enhanced DBS check.
This is your document, and is sent to you only. The employer then takes a copy for their records when you produce it.


They are somewhat pointless, as they always come with the proviso that they are only accurate on the day of issue (like an MOT), and apparently, you could be tried and convicted under another identity anyway.

peachyprice

Kim_kim wrote: »

God I had no idea that motoring offences such as speeding showed up on a DBS!!!!

No speeding alone is NOT a criminal offence.

If dealt with by way of a Fixed Penalty Speeding will not be dealt with as a criminal offence. Effectively you are being made an offer to settle the matter without recourse to the courts by simply accepting 3 penalty points and £100 fine. Is speeding a criminal offence? Not if you pay the Fixed Penalty within 28 days. No conviction is recorded against you and you do not need to concern yourself with having a criminal record.

http://www.roadtrafficlaw.com/is-speeding-a-criminal-offence

http://www.keepmeontheroad.co.uk/motoring-offence-criminal-record/

Car_54

Read the piece you quoted again. All it says is that speeding is not TREATED as a criminal offence if dealt with by a fixed penalty. Even that is an over-simplification: there are exceptions, as the OP has found out.

It is indeed a criminal offence (there is no other kind of offence in English law). If you go to court it is a criminal court, and you face the same system as the (alleged) robbers, drug dealers, rapists and murderers. Not to mention TV licence evaders.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

facade wrote: »

They don't know until the OP shows them the enhanced DBS check.
This is your document, and is sent to you only. The employer then takes a copy for their records when you produce it.


They are somewhat pointless, as they always come with the proviso that they are only accurate on the day of issue (like an MOT), and apparently, you could be tried and convicted under another identity anyway.

Ok. Different to the old CRB check, I'm very out of date.

That's really helpful because it would appear that the OP was not asked to declare spent convictions so he has not done anything wrong in not volunteering the information.

therealhyper

I am putting these links here as they may help others who have DBS 'convictions' which are very old and but hindering thier job prospects. It appears there is a ongoing battle between our Goverment who have no lost there appeal when a previous Judge ruled: criminal records disclosure scheme was disproportionate and unlawful.

Criminal record disclosure checks ruled 'unlawful'

"The government must urgently fix this broken system, which rightly allows people with a single minor offence to move on with their lives, while those with two - no matter the nature or circumstances of their crimes - cannot."

In a landmark Court of Appeal ruling, the Government lost its appeal to a decision of the High Court in January last year, which ruled that the criminal records disclosure scheme was disproportionate and unlawful.

The appeal document:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2017/321.html

therealhyper

IanMSpencer wrote: »

Ok. Different to the old CRB check, I'm very out of date.

That's really helpful because it would appear that the OP was not asked to declare spent convictions so he has not done anything wrong in not volunteering the information.

I have nearly finished drafting a letter which I was going to send along with the DBS Certificate (and now thinking to include those articles I posted earlier) explaining the 'convictions' - do you guys think its worth attaching a letter explaining these ? or wait and explain in person, when / if I am called into HR ?



Thanks

System

therealhyper wrote: »

but also seeking legal advice on the matter of these being recorded as 'convictions' and still remaining on the record after such a long time.

You committed offences under the Road Traffic Act. That means they're criminal offences. Whilst people may not think of motoring offences as being criminal the vast majority are.