Caught with 11-15 zipcard

[styles]

All the hypothetical talk about whether you'll pass SC/eSC vetting or not is really just guesswork. I've got experience of the process but from quite a while ago. Others will have more recent experience but probably not for a fare evasion offence. Some may have experience of other 'dishonesty' type offending, but they almost certainly won't get the same vetting officer. Even if somebody did have the same offence and the same vetting officer, it's not a simple yes/no for the offence; it's considering the vetting process as a whole - your finances then and now, your interview, possibly interviews with people you know, the specific circumstances around the fare evasion, how you handled it in court, your response to it and your new attitude towards it, etc.

There are just far too many variables to give a confident answer.

All I can say is I've known people with convictions go on to pass SC/DV, and known people with past money troubles to pass vetting as well. There's bound to be plenty of people who don't as well.

All you can do is apply, be open, contrite, transparent, and hope for the best.

If you're super duper keen on working in defence then personally I would apply. Otherwise you could spend ages kicking yourself for not having applied. As for future clearances, the information will likely be held, but a refusal one day doesn't mean a refusal for life. The older the conviction and the longer period you can show financial stability and a clean record and honesty, the less of a factor it will be. This also applies to jobs requiring Standard or Enhanced DBS' where spent convictions show until they are filtered.

My advice is apply, and good luck.

As for the ESTA, we can't really give visa advice but the current wording of the questions was changed a few years back so some older answers online may refer to the old 'moral turpitude' question, which no longer applies. Hence I would be very careful relying on AI as it'll be fed on old data as well as new.

The current questions are below, and I'm sure you can take a fairly decent guess at what you should answer:

Have you ever been arrested or convicted for a crime that resulted in serious damage to property, or serious harm to another person or government authority?

Have you ever violated any law related to possessing, using or distributing illegal drugs?

Do you seek to engage in or have you ever engaged in terrorist activities, espionage, sabotage or genocide?

Have you ever committed fraud or misrepresented yourself to obtain, or assist others to obtain, a visa or entry into the United States?

 

[jollybee]

All the hypothetical talk about whether you'll pass SC/eSC vetting or not is really just guesswork. I've got experience of the process but from quite a while ago. Others will have more recent experience but probably not for a fare evasion offence. Some may have experience of other 'dishonesty' type offending, but they almost certainly won't get the same vetting officer. Even if somebody did have the same offence and the same vetting officer, it's not a simple yes/no for the offence; it's considering the vetting process as a whole - your finances then and now, your interview, possibly interviews with people you know, the specific circumstances around the fare evasion, how you handled it in court, your response to it and your new attitude towards it, etc.

There are just far too many variables to give a confident answer.

All I can say is I've known people with convictions go on to pass SC/DV, and known people with past money troubles to pass vetting as well. There's bound to be plenty of people who don't as well.

All you can do is apply, be open, contrite, transparent, and hope for the best.

If you're super duper keen on working in defence then personally I would apply. Otherwise you could spend ages kicking yourself for not having applied. As for future clearances, the information will likely be held, but a refusal one day doesn't mean a refusal for life. The older the conviction and the longer period you can show financial stability and a clean record and honesty, the less of a factor it will be. This also applies to jobs requiring Standard or Enhanced DBS' where spent convictions show until they are filtered.

My advice is apply, and good luck.

As for the ESTA, we can't really give visa advice but the current wording of the questions was changed a few years back so some older answers online may refer to the old 'moral turpitude' question, which no longer applies. Hence I would be very careful relying on AI as it'll be fed on old data as well as new.

The current questions are below, and I'm sure you can take a fairly decent guess at what you should answer:

Thank you for the advice, I will shoot my shot and still apply for defence roles and hope for the best.

In regards to the new ESTA question, I assume the conviction would come under the 1st question as TfL is a goverment authority of some sort and my fare evasion could probably be deemed as a 'serious offence' however I am not sure, as a bylaw conviction may not be regarded as this. That being said I'll ask someone specialised about this.

 

[WesternLancer]

In regards to the new ESTA question, I assume the conviction would come under the 1st question as TfL is a goverment authority of some sort and my fare evasion could probably be deemed as a 'serious offence' however I am not sure, as a bylaw conviction may not be regarded as this. That being said I'll ask someone specialised about this.

But the section quoted by @styles does not say ‘serous offence’ it says ‘serious harm’.

It seems to me like your levels of fare evasion are unlikely to have caused TfL ‘serious harm’. It’s multi million pound organisation. What kind of total fares have you evaded as a percentage of that?

My personal opinion. A specialist might have a different view perhaps.

 

[styles]

Thank you for the advice, I will shoot my shot and still apply for defence roles and hope for the best.

Good luck It would be fab if you could report back about the SC once you've applied actually, as it could help other people with similar questions (though like I say, every case is different).

In regards to the new ESTA question, I assume the conviction would come under the 1st question as TfL is a goverment authority of some sort and my fare evasion could probably be deemed as a 'serious offence' however I am not sure, as a bylaw conviction may not be regarded as this. That being said I'll ask someone specialised about this.

Do you consider that you caused serious harm or serious damage to TfL?

 

[jollybee]

But the section quoted by @styles does not say ‘serous offence’ it says ‘serious harm’.

It seems to me like your levels of fare evasion are unlikely to have caused TfL ‘serious harm’. It’s multi million pound organisation. What kind of total fares have you evaded as a percentage of that?

My personal opinion. A specialist might have a different view perhaps.

Sorry I read it as 'offence' and not 'harm'

They have mentioned on the email to my solicitor that they suspect me of making 65 journey's which totals to £325.60. I guess this is not serious harm or loss, but I want to be extra careful as if the US deem this as serious for some reason, I could get into more trouble.

Good luck

Do you consider that you caused serious harm or serious damage to TfL?

I don't deem this as serious as £300 is not really anything to them I guess, but I'm not sure what the US definition of 'serious' could be. I would not want to tick no if my interpretation of 'serious' is different to theirs.

I guess I'll just have to ask someone, does anyone know any website I can look into or email for advice on this?

 

[jollybee]

Good luck It would be fab if you could report back about the SC once you've applied actually, as it could help other people with similar questions (though like I say, every case is different).

I will try and remember to do so (I probably will given the trauma I have just gone through). I might need to start a new thread as I assume in 6 months or so this would be locked. I'd like to help others in a similar situation to me regarding clearance.

 

[AlterEgo]

If you end up with an active SC security clearance you must not talk about it on public forums for hopefully obvious reasons.

 

[jollybee]

If you end up with an active SC security clearance you must not talk about it on public forums for hopefully obvious reasons.

I did not think about that, thank you for reminding me.

 

[Egg Centric]

I guess I'll just have to ask someone, does anyone know any website I can look into or email for advice on this?

While the advice will be "unofficial", I would start with www.immigrationboards.com

 

[Dave W]

Even if somebody did have the same offence and the same vetting officer, it's not a simple yes/no for the offence; it's considering the vetting process as a whole

Well, exactly this. I hope that what OP took from those who chimed in (including me) on questions around SC were clear on just 1 thing: Be open and honest. Nothing's ever a done deal with SC/DV even if you think you're squeaky clean, and vice versa. My final caveat is that the DV stories of your ex's brother's dog being contacted to verify you are one thing, but SC is a (relatively) much lighter interrogation of your background.

What you can say with some certainty is if you lie about it, and they find out, you almost definitely won't get your clearance. But I think I've made that point enough now good luck!

 

[jollybee]

.

 

[styles]

Furthermore I am more stressed out as during this time in May, I'll have my uni exams and I'm not sure when to tell the court if i have an exam on the same day as I haven't heard back from TfL, and I dont know when to start filling up the papers. I am also due to fill in my SC check forms soon before June, however I am aware I will need to mention this proceeding.

I am just worried that if i mention this, and they refuse to give me clearance as it would be a very recent conviction, my offer would be withdrawn, and if TfL decide to finally settle at the last minute, my offer would already be gone. I understand it's upto the company and vetting etc when it comes to this sort of stuff, but i have heard of people of who got dismissed for fare evasion, so this has made me even more panicked.

I don't have the experience to comment on how this TfL case will progress.

But the SC advice is largely the same. All you can do is be open and honest. I'm not sure any vetting officers are on the forums, and those of us who have been through vetting have largely said the important thing is to not have skeletons in your closet.

Even if you don't disclose pending criminal matters, one of the questions is along the lines of, "Do you have or have you previously had financial difficulties?", and in your opening post you said, "I have currently been facing financial difficulties", after all, that's why the fare evasion came about. So I can't see how you can really avoid declaring the matter either way, and if you do fail to declare it and they find out another way, you're going to be scuppered for a long time getting NSV.

Potentially you could delay the job but they're going to ask why, and if you answer honestly the reason is that you think you might not have to declare a criminal matter, which isn't going to be a good look.

Of course you could double up your lie about why you're delaying the job and on the SC form say you haven't had serious financial difficulties, but I think you can see the potential issues with this.

Just my 2p anyway.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Furthermore I am more stressed out as during this time in May, I'll have my uni exams and I'm not sure when to tell the court if i have an exam on the same day

If it turns out that you have an exam on the same day as your court hearing is booked for, then as soon as you find that out get in touch with the court- or better still, as you are employing a solicitor, get them to contact the court. You won't be the first student to face being in court, and the court will have a standard response. That response might not be the one you want, but you will at least know where you stand.

 

[thruud]

I am very familiar with the current process. All I can recommend is that if you have begun the paperwork, you contact UKSV and ask them to how they would like it declared, noting it is an in flight prosecution.

I can't tell you what decision will be reached as the process takes a wide range of factors into consideration, not just criminal history. Declaring it will be in your favour but equally I could see a decision taking longer than usual and potentially being a refusal. It really depends which organisation you're applying to join and the work you are doing. An unspent conviction like this, particularly a recent one, may be seen as a challenge so I'd engage now and work on the assumption that you will be refused vetting - then if it comes through, thats good news.

 

[jollybee]

.

 

[Jhggggha]

,

What has happened to your case ?

 

[MotCO]

What has happened to your case ?

If you are seeking help for your own circumstances, please start a new thread. No two cases are the same, and we tailor our advice to each individual case.