We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Job Interview: Drink Driving offence on DBS
Options
Comments
-
Hi all,
My first post here and just hoping for some advice or guidance; I've been trawling the web looking for clarification on my issue but to no avail.
The long and short of it is that 21 years ago I got charged (18 month ban) with drink driving (I was 1mg over the limit due to drinking the night before). When I arrived at the police station I accidentally/heavy handily broke the pipe on the breathlyser and they also charged me with failing to provide a specimen, which was Gods honest truth not the case. The whole incident has been the biggest regret of my life.
Moving forward, I still worry when applying for jobs (I work in IT) in case the company ask for a criminal record check and this shows up. In my last role, I had a Disclosure Scotland (Basic Disclosure) where it came back clean as it was a spent conviction which after reading up on is correct.
The job I had prior to the one above in 2016 however is where my worry/problem is. The company paid for a Disclosure & Barring Service (Standard Certificate) and it showed both charges that I was arrested for. Because of this I felt I had no choice but to resign with immediate effect before even handing it to them. From my understanding, after 11 years from the time of the offence this should now be classed as spent and as a filtered conviction which wouldn't show upon as Standard DBS - is that correct? If that is the case, this shouldn't have shown up 6 years later in 2016 - unless I'm completely wrong.
I'm extremely worried as I've got another interview tomorrow for a contract role and petrified this might come back to haunt me once again.
Can anyone please advise or at least point me in the right direction as to where I stand with this.
Many thanks in advance.
Life would be so much simpler sticking to the truth.0 -
Hmmm, well you know what, now you mention School based jobs (which makes sense) I always thought the manager had been a bit cheeky because he put that it was "School IT Support - Child Workforce" under the "Position applied for" on the DBS certificate which was never the case. They only dealt with Financial & Media companies, which I wouldn't have thought would have had the need to still disclose my spent conviction.
If they didnt offer you the job because of the spent conviction then you would likely win a tribunal.0 -
Shaun_of_the_Dead wrote: »Life would be so much simpler sticking to the truth.
?????????????????0 -
The employer has the discretion to look at the circumstances of the conviction before making a decision. 21 years ago for that type of offence, and nothing since, I'd be pushing for that not to be a bar to employment if I was the recruiter.All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well.
Pedant alert - it's could have, not could of.0 -
Mercdriver wrote: »?????????????????
Looking at their other various replies on threads they mostly appear to be either sarcy, of no help or pointless, hence not giving them the pleasure of a response that they was probably hoping for.0 -
foxy-stoat wrote: »If they didnt offer you the job because of the spent conviction then you would likely win a tribunal.
You're correct, I probably would have.
Just to reiterate though, it's not regarding that role back in '16 where my issue or worry is. That job was where I was first ever asked to undertake a DBS check, which then showed up the spent conviction that I thought wouldn't/shouldn't have appeared on it.
I seem to tick all the boxes for the conviction to be spent/protected yet it still came up.0 -
Looking at their other various replies on threads they mostly appear to be either sarcy, of no help or pointless, hence not giving them the pleasure of a response that they was probably hoping for.
If you were charged with failing to provide you weren't 1 microgram over and it takes some effort break the pipe on machine. Were you also charge with criminal damage too?
I suspect you mean the plastic tube you blow into. The only way you're breaking that is pulling it off and standing on it.
There's obviously more to this that you're caring to share.0 -
Even if it shows up on DBS check, so what? What employer is going to give a monkey's about a motoring conviction in 1999?
good luck for the interview.0 -
Jumblebumble wrote: »There are more holes than a swiss cheese in this story
My understanding is that no one is ever charged with being 1 mg over the limit as the police limit is 35 and the police will not charge if one of the specimens is below 39
I struggle to understand how you have been charged with failure to provide if you have eventually provided
Its charge at 40 but 21 years ago 40 to 50 the suspect had the option of having the breath specimen replaced by blood.0 -
Shaun_of_the_Dead wrote: »If you were charged with failing to provide you weren't 1 microgram over and it takes some effort break the pipe on machine. Were you also charge with criminal damage too?
I suspect you mean the plastic tube you blow into. The only way you're breaking that is pulling it off and standing on it.
There's obviously more to this that you're caring to share.
I don't know if this applied 21 years ago but i suspect the reading was 1mg over 39 and not 350
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 350.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards