CRB Check Help

[E&W Lucas]

Standard CRB check will show up ALL convictions and cautions, spent or otherwise.

Enhanced level goes much deeper, including police intelligence and certain aspects of your medical history.

It is an offence in itself to request a crb check that isn't actually required, and the enhanced level can only be requested for certain very specific roles. It's a system that is being abused, and is becoming a recruitment tool for companies.

 

[Zoe]

The standard CRB check is for people working with children or vulnerable adults. The enhanced check is when you are involved with caring for or are in sole charge of children or vulnerable adults. From the TOCs point of view they may well justify a standard check as there are likely to be children or vulnerable adults on your station or train. An enhanced check would be needed if you were to be left in sole charge of these people. If you were going to study nursing or medicine for example then this type of check would be required and I know of people that have been refused admission onto these courses due to relatively minor offences.

 

[Clip]

.oh dear delete

 

[4SRKT]

The standard CRB check is for people working with children or vulnerable adults. The enhanced check is when you are involved with caring for or are in sole charge of children or vulnerable adults. From the TOCs point of view they may well justify a standard check as there are likely to be children or vulnerable adults on your station or train. An enhanced check would be needed if you were to be left in sole charge of these people. If you were going to study nursing or medicine for example then this type of check would be required and I know of people that have been refused admission onto these courses due to relatively minor offences.

What sort of offences? Do they have to be offences against children or can they be any sort of crime?

 

[Zoe]

Do they have to be offences against children or can they be any sort of crime?

At the end of the day the CRB check itself is just a disclosure not a set of rules. It's up to each employer or university to make the decision although they would have to comply with any laws. That said I can see that if someone had a conviction or caution for assault against another adult then they may not want to risk letting them on the course.

 

[merlodlliw]

Standard CRB check will show up ALL convictions and cautions, spent or otherwise.

Enhanced level goes much deeper, including police intelligence and certain aspects of your medical history.

It is an offence in itself to request a crb check that isn't actually required, and the enhanced level can only be requested for certain very specific roles. It's a system that is being abused, and is becoming a recruitment tool for companies.

You are correct, it is abused and just another tool for Companies,many of which do not understand what the check is for.

A Consultant told me my board of Trustees should be CRBd, even though they do not deal with actual cash or direct with clients, I asked what would be gained by doing this, and who would receive the information I got a blank look. The down side of all of this is a check can take weeks, plus any crime committed after the day of the check is not recorded.

Bob

 

[Zoe]

On heritage lines HIT demand that everyone involved have an enhanced CRB check on Thomas weekends. This includes people like signalman that wouldn't usually come into contact with the public.

 

[merlodlliw]

On heritage lines HIT demand that everyone involved have an enhanced CRB check on Thomas weekends. This includes people like signalman that wouldn't usually come into contact with the public.

Then that in my opinion is over the top, if a signalman is not dealing with the public on a regular basis, there is no need for a check.

Bob

 

[ralphchadkirk]

On heritage lines HIT demand that everyone involved have an enhanced CRB check on Thomas weekends. This includes people like signalman that wouldn't usually come into contact with the public.

No they do not. They want standard checks for those who do come into contact with children.

 

[Zoe]

No they do not. They want standard checks for those who do come into contact with children.

Not what I've heard. I also know of one person on a heritage line that did have an enhanced CRB check. You may also want to read this: http://www.burytimes.co.uk/news/bur...he_Tank_weekend_derailed_after_legal_wrangle/

 

[island]

Are they allowed to take spent convictions into account, even if they do see them? A conviction resulting in a non-custodial sentence is spent after five years.

 

[merlodlliw]

Not what I've heard. I also know of one person on a heritage line that did have an enhanced CRB check. You may also want to read this: http://www.burytimes.co.uk/news/bur...he_Tank_weekend_derailed_after_legal_wrangle/

This is absolute stupidity,the publications firm again are being led by consultants,some of whom have not a clue,good for those in East Lancs making a stand. Thank goodness the CRB rules are about to have common sense put into them.


Bob

 

[ItchyRsole]

Thanks for the input everyone.

Ok it seems then that this may very well arise but as mentioned by others seems very OTT, 5-6 years ago for fare evasion is hardly the history of a serial killer or paedophile. Seems very harsh & needs to be looked at with regards to the relevance & what is gained from it. Of course for the right reasons the CRB is in place but to possibly be held back from making an honest living after such a minor thing seems dreadful.

 

[E&W Lucas]

Not what I've heard. I also know of one person on a heritage line that did have an enhanced CRB check. You may also want to read this: http://www.burytimes.co.uk/news/bur...he_Tank_weekend_derailed_after_legal_wrangle/

Zoe is right, unless anything has changed in the last few months. Rather seems to be a case of HIT trying to discourage preservation societies from holding Thomas events. This has certainly been the effect of their actions.

Re spent convictions, the effect of the CRB check is of course that they will be taken into account. As will the minor offences dealt with through a Police Caution, as these are never regarded as spent. Another piece of Stalinist legislation from the last government.

If you speak to those that actually work in child protection, they will tell you that the people that you need to worry about keep so far under the radar that they will not show up on a CRB screen. It's just another expensive, bureaucratic, invasive nightmare for the rest of us!

 

[ralphchadkirk]

If that is true (which I doubt) then hit are breaking the law by demanding it.

 

[merlodlliw]

If that is true (which I doubt) then hit are breaking the law by demanding it.

Its the old story, if you know the CRB rules well, you can make a stand,most societies I am sorry to say do not know the rules, and just circum to silly requests.I always read the official guidance notes and then ask where in the regulations does it say that I have to.

As Ralph says HIT are probably breaking the law, unless some one tests it.


Bob

 

[ItchyRsole]

Ok I just popped into the local magistrates court & spoke to a magistrate. She said that if I was stopped by an employee of the TOC (which I was) then it is regarded as a civil offence & the file is only kept for court records. If however you are stopped by a BTP officer then it is regarded as a criminal offence.

Not sure who makes up these daft rules but they need to be looked into. She did also confirm that the offences never expire or become spent.

 

[Zoe]

FGW can and do prosecute fare evaders. Criminal prosecutions do not have to be brought by the CPS.

 

[DarloRich]

Ok I just popped into the local magistrates court & spoke to a magistrate. She said that if I was stopped by an employee of the TOC (which I was) then it is regarded as a civil offence & the file is only kept for court records. If however you are stopped by a BTP officer then it is regarded as a criminal offence.

Not sure who makes up these daft rules but they need to be looked into. She did also confirm that the offences never expire or become spent.

I think that is wrong. Sorry

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Ok I just popped into the local magistrates court & spoke to a magistrate. She said that if I was stopped by an employee of the TOC (which I was) then it is regarded as a civil offence & the file is only kept for court records. If however you are stopped by a BTP officer then it is regarded as a criminal offence.

Not sure who makes up these daft rules but they need to be looked into. She did also confirm that the offences never expire or become spent.

I would question the legality of what the Magistrate said. Given that Magistrate's work with the advice of Court Clerks and with detailed guidelines I would never ask a Magistrate's advice as they are neither lawyers nor consistent.

 

[Multiple Unit]

Not read allof this thread but what I will say is that under the rehabilitation of offenders act spent convictions don't need to be disclosed.

 

[Zoe]

Not read allof this thread but what I will say is that under the rehabilitation of offenders act spent convictions don't need to be disclosed.

Certain jobs are exempt from this act. The application form may well ask you to list any unspent cautions or convictions but as I say, all cautions and convictions will show up on the standard CRB check regardless of if they are spent or not.

 

[DarloRich]

Not read allof this thread but what I will say is that under the rehabilitation of offenders act spent convictions don't need to be disclosed.

UNLESS you are applying for job which is excluded from the act. (Will have to check the website for the up to date list - doubt this will be!)

 

[the sniper]

Ok I just popped into the local magistrates court & spoke to a magistrate. She said that if I was stopped by an employee of the TOC (which I was) then it is regarded as a civil offence & the file is only kept for court records. If however you are stopped by a BTP officer then it is regarded as a criminal offence.

Not sure who makes up these daft rules but they need to be looked into. She did also confirm that the offences never expire or become spent.

I'm sure that's wrong. The Regulation of Railways act 1889 says:

[5](2)If a passenger having failed either to produce, or if requested to deliver up, a ticket showing that his fare is paid, or to pay his fare, refuses on request by an officer or servant of a railway company, to give his name and address, any officer of the company . . . may detain him until he can be conveniently brought before some justice or otherwise discharged by due course of law.

And as Yorkie has already said, RRA 1889 is a recordable offence and will show up on a standard CRB check.

And I'm not sure, but I don't know if BTP officers can charge someone for committing an offence under the RRA 1889, as they're not technically 'officer or servant of a railway company'.

 

[Zoe]

And I'm not sure, but I don't know if BTP officers can charge someone for committing an offence under the RRA 1889, as they're not technically 'officer or servant of a railway company'.

I'd have thought the BTP would have to bring a prosecution via the CPS. The CPS though may not want to prosecute so some TOCs bring their own prosecutions.

 

[island]

And I'm not sure, but I don't know if BTP officers can charge someone for committing an offence under the RRA 1889, as they're not technically 'officer or servant of a railway company'.

They would use the Police and Criminal Evidence Act to request name and address, and would be able to charge people if they wanted to. I don't know if they could prosecute or if it would have to go through the CPS.

 

[ItchyRsole]

The magistrate told me that & then made a call to the fines officer who confirmed this. Reading the last few posts has made me think maybe they are wrong.

I'm more confused now than when the thread started.

I guess if a contract comes through my door to sign then I presume I'm ok. If not then hey ho.

 

[merlodlliw]

unless Imissed it,what was the job?


Bob

 

[Stigy]

I'm sure that's wrong. The Regulation of Railways act 1889 says:



And as Yorkie has already said, RRA 1889 is a recordable offence and will show up on a standard CRB check.

And I'm not sure, but I don't know if BTP officers can charge someone for committing an offence under the RRA 1889, as they're not technically 'officer or servant of a railway company'.

A BTP officer (Or any other Police Officer, probably with the exception of the CNC or RMP...It's just that HO coppers don't really understand Byelaws etc as their job doesn't usually make use of them) will be listed under the RRA and in Byelaws as a "Constable" I believe, and has the same power as a servant of the railways to report offenders. It will indeed be a CPS case though, as opposed to a TOC one.

The magistrate told me that & then made a call to the fines officer who confirmed this. Reading the last few posts has made me think maybe they are wrong.

I'm more confused now than when the thread started.

I guess if a contract comes through my door to sign then I presume I'm ok. If not then hey ho.

LOL, on quoting you I just noticed what your username read!

They are indeed wrong. The problem with Magistrates is that they tend not to know too much about the law, and are not legally trained. the Clerk of the Court is the one to offer legal advice. ANY offence prosecuted by a TOC for these cases is criminal. RRA 1889 offences are recordable on the Police National Computer, Byelaws aren't.

If you were found guilty of a byelaw offence, then I do not believe they are 'recorded' (I recall an RPI saying so on this forum), however I am unsure if that really is the case (there will surely be a record somewhere), and it may be the case that an enhanced check might bring this up, to be honest I do not know.

It's correct that Byelaws are not recordable but RRA 1889 offences are. Recordable by definition, relates to being obtainable on the PNC, and nothing else, although only recently have courts started to list private cases on the system. CPS cases of the same type have always been listed as a matter of course.

If you buy the 'wrong ticket' in the sense that you buy an Off Peak ticket routed Not London and travel via London on a train that counts as 'peak' for that specific ticket, then you would in that case be asked to pay the excess to the appropriate fare (not charged a new fare or even a penalty fare and certainly not prosecuted),

Obviously ignoring Adult on Child tickets, and going solely with incorrect tickets in the sense of what you described, Why would you certainly not be prosecuted in that case? It's as good a reason as any, and call me synical, but a good RPI or other staff member could find a nice little fare evasion MG11 in there with a bit of questioning. Even if it's not ascertained as dilliberate, then there's Byelaw 18.1.

 

[yorkie]

Why would you certainly not be prosecuted in that case? It's as good a reason as any, and call me synical, but a good RPI or other staff member could find a nice little fare evasion MG11 in there with a bit of questioning. Even if it's not ascertained as dilliberate, then there's Byelaw 18.1.

Because the correct action is an excess, you can't even issue a penalty fare for that!

My point is that the OP was suggesting that a mistake in not quite buying the right ticket would result in a prosecution. I do think that is scaremongering a bit. Of course "not having the right ticket" is a fairly meaningless statement without further information on why it is not right.