CRB Check Help

[SussexMan]

If it helps, here is a list of all the Jobs and Positions for which a CRB check can be requested.

http://www.crb.homeoffice.gov.uk/guidance/rb_guidance/eligible_posts.aspx

If it is not on that list a CRB check cannot legally be requested (but lots of them do get checked).

The CRB do two types of checks, Std and Enhanced. The Std ones are for people who hold certain positions and the Enhanced are for people working with children or vulnerable adults. Both these checks will show up spent convictions.

Disclosure Scotland http://www.disclosurescotland.co.uk/ provide checks which will show all unspent convictions and are available to all employers.

No check whether via CRB or Disclosure Scotland can be done without permission from the person who is the subject of the check. A copy of the results of checks is always posted to the applicant. (There is a proposal to send out the applicants copy first to allow them to dispute errors).

Many employers do try to do checks on people who they have no legal right to do them on. The problem is, is that the person who has been offered a job may not want to start off their new career raising issues about whether their new employer should be doing a check. The employer may wonder what the person has to hide and the job may strangely be withdrawn.

If you want a list of the time periods before a conviction becomes spent they are here: http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/docs/rehabilitation-offenders.pdf. Note that a "fine" is 5 years so if the offence was "about" 5 years ago you may have had to declare it if it was less than 5 years when you made your application.

Hope that helps.

PS: What is the job???

 

[Stigy]

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

I've reported people for travelling on an incorrect ticket as far as routing goes and see no issue with it. If there's a difference in the cost of the fare, I see no issue with it, as it's the same principle as having no ticket at all in a lot of cases.

 

[yorkie]

I've reported people for travelling on an incorrect ticket as far as routing goes and see no issue with it. If there's a difference in the cost of the fare, I see no issue with it, as it's the same principle as having no ticket at all in a lot of cases.

It absolutely is not the same principle as having no ticket at all.

No wonder you are so keen to hide who you work for, as you and your TOC are quite clearly acting incorrectly.

The correct action for incorrect route is an excess to the appropriate fare, for half the difference per portion.

The correct action for travelling on a time restricted ticket at a barred time is an excess to the appropriate fare, for the full difference per portion.

I challenge you to reveal which TOCs do not adhere to the correct policy outlined above? If you cannot do so I will assume you are trolling...

 

[Flamingo]

Ask the CRB directly:
http://www.crb.homeoffice.gov.uk/contact_us/enquiry_form.aspx

 

[Stigy]

It absolutely is not the same principle as having no ticket at all.

No wonder you are so keen to hide who you work for, as you and your TOC are quite clearly acting incorrectly.

The correct action for incorrect route is an excess to the appropriate fare, for half the difference per portion.

The correct action for travelling on a time restricted ticket at a barred time is an excess to the appropriate fare, for the full difference per portion.

I challenge you to reveal which TOCs do not adhere to the correct policy outlined above? If you cannot do so I will assume you are trolling...

Maybe I'm missing something here then...

Where is it written that you MUST excess a fare to make the difference? What if somebody is doing it dilliberately in order to evade paying their correct fare? If the TOC I work for were acting illegally, do you really think they'd let their staff continue to report such offences, and even prosecute for them? Would they get away with it in court?

I resent being accused of trolling, and I will certainly not reveal who it is I work for. I will emphasise though that I'm not part of a Revenue Protection team, and, as I have said before, am an Acredited Person. That will certainly narrow it down, but enough that I still maintain anonymous. I've reported probably 1,000 people over the past few years and have had many succesful prosecutions, too. I've only had to attend court on a few occassions, and all of which the defendants settled out of court on the trial date, thus not actually having to give evidence. which would suggest I'm doing something right, surely?

 

[4SRKT]

Maybe I'm missing something here then...

Where is it written that you MUST excess a fare to make the difference? What if somebody is doing it dilliberately in order to evade paying their correct fare? If the TOC I work for were acting illegally, do you really think they'd let their staff continue to report such offences, and even prosecute for them? Would they get away with it in court?

I resent being accused of trolling, and I will certainly not reveal who it is I work for. I will emphasise though that I'm not part of a Revenue Protection team, and, as I have said before, am an Acredited Person. That will certainly narrow it down, but enough that I still maintain anonymous. I've reported probably 1,000 people over the past few years and have had many succesful prosecutions, too. I've only had to attend court on a few occassions, and all of which the defendants settled out of court on the trial date, thus not actually having to give evidence. which would suggest I'm doing something right, surely?

If, as Yorkie seems to be suggesting, you are illegally criminalising people, then no, you are not doing something right. Quite the reverse in fact.

You and Yorkie can't both be right on this, and while I admit I know nothing of your background, Yorkie really seems to know his stuff time and again. If he is indeed correct then your behaviour and that of your TOC is a massive cause for concern. If he is wrong, then there's nothing to worry about.

 

[ItchyRsole]

If it helps, here is a list of all the Jobs and Positions for which a CRB check can be requested.

http://www.crb.homeoffice.gov.uk/guidance/rb_guidance/eligible_posts.aspx

If it is not on that list a CRB check cannot legally be requested (but lots of them do get checked).

The CRB do two types of checks, Std and Enhanced. The Std ones are for people who hold certain positions and the Enhanced are for people working with children or vulnerable adults. Both these checks will show up spent convictions.

Disclosure Scotland http://www.disclosurescotland.co.uk/ provide checks which will show all unspent convictions and are available to all employers.

No check whether via CRB or Disclosure Scotland can be done without permission from the person who is the subject of the check. A copy of the results of checks is always posted to the applicant. (There is a proposal to send out the applicants copy first to allow them to dispute errors).

Many employers do try to do checks on people who they have no legal right to do them on. The problem is, is that the person who has been offered a job may not want to start off their new career raising issues about whether their new employer should be doing a check. The employer may wonder what the person has to hide and the job may strangely be withdrawn.

If you want a list of the time periods before a conviction becomes spent they are here: http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/docs/rehabilitation-offenders.pdf. Note that a "fine" is 5 years so if the offence was "about" 5 years ago you may have had to declare it if it was less than 5 years when you made your application.

Hope that helps.

PS: What is the job???

Thanx mate some very useful pointers there.

The job is 'customer service staff' with FCC. Mixture of ticket office, working the barriers, train dispatch etc.

 

[Stigy]

If, as Yorkie seems to be suggesting, you are illegally criminalising people, then no, you are not doing something right. Quite the reverse in fact.

You and Yorkie can't both be right on this, and while I admit I know nothing of your background, Yorkie really seems to know his stuff time and again. If he is indeed correct then your behaviour and that of your TOC is a massive cause for concern. If he is wrong, then there's nothing to worry about.

Do you really think a TOC would be able to get away with, time and time again, going to court with so called illegal cases?

The NRCoC suggest as I do...Or seem to anyway.

 

[ItchyRsole]

Quick question, it seems trivial things like cautions & fines are never 'spent' & will always show up so why is the word even used in relation to this if it's always going to be there???

 

[Peter Sarf]

Dear Itchy R sole :-

Some links below that you should consult. Sorry its a bit rushed - work getting in the way (criminal aint it !).

I seem to remember that if the sentence is less than 6 months in jail then the CRB check will show up the offence for 7 years. Community service is spent after 5 years. I guess yours was not even community service. After 5 years it is still there but only available in one of two ways 1) An enhanced check shows everything from the day you were born ONLY certain firms/departments are able to get this. One example is if you are to be an accountant then they can do an enhanced check there are not many cases where they can do an enhanced check. 2) If you request your own CRB check it shows everything and some firms cheat by asking YOU to get the check. That is wrong as under the terms of the rehabilitation of offenders act YOU have entitlements (spen convictions) - and responsibilities (you have to honest about it if its relevent (unspent).

If you are to work with vulnerable people (children / disabled) then they can dig deeper and also go to the sex offenders register (unlikely to show fare evasion !!).

I hope five years has passed. But in any case one statistic is something daft like one third of males born in the 50s have some kind of criminal record. Join the club !.

Here is a link you should consult. http://www.crb.homeoffice.gov.uk/about_crb/what_is_the_roa.aspx

Regarding spent convictions READ THIS http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/docs/rehabilitation-offenders.pdf. Its a pdf so you will need adobe reader FREE so google search for it.

The whole point of the act was that if you have paid your punishment than you are entitled to be treated as equal after a certain period if the offence was deemed not too serious. It would be hard for a judge to give a small sentence if it non the less ruined the rest of the offenders life. My view is though that it is still unfair to penelise someone for five years for such a minor offence. The official view in the past is that too many previously clean people end up re-offending because they can no longer get a job after one out of character slip up.

 

[yorkie]

Where is it written that you MUST excess a fare to make the difference?

Show me your instruction book if you like (remove the TOC logo ) but I've seen East Coasts (which has also been linked to from this forum a couple of times) and also another TOC, both of which say that the appropriate action is to excess to the appropriate fare (not even the full fare).

Of course if someone refuses to pay then depending on how the conversation goes, a different course of action may result.

What if somebody is doing it dilliberately in order to evade paying their correct fare?

That would be very difficult to prove, and you were going on about 18.1 earlier, so you are changing your mind about what the 'offence' is are you?

Also you hinted that you go round asking questions, when the instructions clearly state to issue an excess fare.

OK if they said something like "I am not paying that fare, I know it's wrong and I always refuse to pay and get away with it, and this time is no different" or something bizarre like that, you may have a point, but 99% of the time it would be a straightforward case of asking for the excess, and the customer pays up (perhaps reluctantly in some cases!)

If the TOC I work for were acting illegally, do you really think they'd let their staff continue to report such offences,

Yes

and even prosecute for them?

Yes

Would they get away with it in court?

Given that the OP tells us a magistrates court seems to think certain criminal cases are civil, and given how complicated railway ticketing is, and given how manipulative TOCs can be, and given how some defendants don't put up much of a case, err... yes.

I resent being accused of trolling, and I will certainly not reveal who it is I work for.

There are quite a few clues.

There are not many TOCs that I think have RPIs that act such a way anyway. There are one or two with 'history' and are well known.

I will emphasise though that I'm not part of a Revenue Protection team, and, as I have said before, am an Acredited Person. That will certainly narrow it down, but enough that I still maintain anonymous.

Fair enough, I don't want to know who you are, but which TOC is instructing you to go round prosecuting when an excess is appropriate.

I've reported probably 1,000 people over the past few years and have had many succesful prosecutions, too. I've only had to attend court on a few occassions, and all of which the defendants settled out of court on the trial date, thus not actually having to give evidence. which would suggest I'm doing something right, surely?

Something doesn't necessarily equal everything, and I am not denying that you do a good job on the majority of occasions. Such issues are very complicated and not many people know the rules. Even the barrier staff at Euston think tickets can't be excessed for change of route! Why should I have confidence in all rail staff and all court staff to have a good knowledge? No way, the fares system is far too complicated, and the TOCs get away with far too much for me to be confident they always get it right.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Quick question, it seems trivial things like cautions & fines are never 'spent' & will always show up so why is the word even used in relation to this if it's always going to be there???

Well, exactly, the whole thing stinks. The TOCs have far too much power. Let's face it, someone is better off stealing or assaulting someone (as long as it's not too badly). I witness things every day that are arguably worse than anything you have done, and none of those people are really punished let alone given a criminal record.

But to fight the system is very difficult, you could start by contacting your MP. But I don't hold out much hope of anything changing.

 

[SussexMan]

Quick question, it seems trivial things like cautions & fines are never 'spent' & will always show up so why is the word even used in relation to this if it's always going to be there???

Yes they certainly do get spent. But they will never disappear off your record. They will show up on a Std or Enhanced Check (but not a Disclosure Scotland Check) and you are under no obligation to disclose a spent conviction if the employer has no legal right to ask about spent convictions (which is given under one of the Schedules of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act).

I cannot see they have a right to do a CRB check for the job you have mentioned

Mixture of ticket office, working the barriers, train dispatch etc.

You could always ask the CRB for an opinion.

 

[Ferret]

If, as Yorkie seems to be suggesting, you are illegally criminalising people, then no, you are not doing something right. Quite the reverse in fact.

You and Yorkie can't both be right on this, and while I admit I know nothing of your background, Yorkie really seems to know his stuff time and again. If he is indeed correct then your behaviour and that of your TOC is a massive cause for concern. If he is wrong, then there's nothing to worry about.

They can both be right though. First course of action when seeing somebody off route is to do a simple change of route excess and relieve the passenger of the difference in fare - as Yorkie says.

Now, what if you keep catching the same person over and over again hoping to get away with it by purchasing that same ticket for a cheaper route? You can then try and argue deliberate fare evasion in front of a judge - though you'd need quite a few occasions though to build up a sufficient case in my opinion.

 

[yorkie]

They can both be right though. First course of action when seeing somebody off route is to do a simple change of route excess and relieve the passenger of the difference in fare - as Yorkie says.

Now, what if you keep catching the same person over and over again hoping to get away with it by purchasing that same ticket for a cheaper route? You can then try and argue deliberate fare evasion in front of a judge - though you'd need quite a few occasions though to build up a sufficient case in my opinion.

Yes, I agree, but I got the impression (apologies if I am wrong) that Stigy is wanting to question people rather than charge the excess. Perhaps he meant if he saw the same person several times and there was a pattern e.g. it was their daily commute and they got the wrong ticket each time.

The FRPP is quite clear that an excess should be charged on board, and to the appropriate fare too. I do hope all TOCs are adhering to that, Stagecoach-owned TOCs have a tendency to deny existence of the correct excess rules and also the existence of the routeing guide...

 

[Ferret]

Yes, I agree, but I got the impression (apologies if I am wrong) that Stigy is wanting to question people rather than charge the excess. Perhaps he meant if he saw the same person several times and there was a pattern e.g. it was their daily commute and they got the wrong ticket each time.

The FRPP is quite clear that an excess should be charged on board, and to the appropriate fare too. I do hope all TOCs are adhering to that, Stagecoach-owned TOCs have a tendency to deny existence of the correct excess rules and also the existence of the routeing guide...

Well I certainly do! Quite often pick up change of route excesses too!

 

[ItchyRsole]

Peter Sarf & Sussesxman

Really appreciate your posts. Has given me plenty to chew on.

Thank you.

 

[Stigy]

Yes, I agree, but I got the impression (apologies if I am wrong) that Stigy is wanting to question people rather than charge the excess. Perhaps he meant if he saw the same person several times and there was a pattern e.g. it was their daily commute and they got the wrong ticket each time.

The FRPP is quite clear that an excess should be charged on board, and to the appropriate fare too. I do hope all TOCs are adhering to that, Stagecoach-owned TOCs have a tendency to deny existence of the correct excess rules and also the existence of the routeing guide...

I mentioned the Byelaw as a sideline to deliberate fare evasion, emphasising that it could still be enforced.

Me wanting to question people is very much part of my job. I feel you have to have an suspicious mind alot of the time. Asking questions needn't be in order to report somebody, or indeed under caution. Even if it is under caution, don't forget that the officer only has to have a reasonable belief that offences might have been comitted to warrant a Q&A session, and an off route or invalid ticket would certainly get a foot in the door!

You mention instruction books, which suggests what you've seen are certain TOCs' policies as opposed to the legal standing on the situation.

You clearly have never been in such a job where enforcement is a big part of the role, because if you had, you'd appreciate where I'm coming from here.

That would be very difficult to prove, and you were going on about 18.1 earlier, so you are changing your mind about what the 'offence' is are you?

Not difficult at all if the right questions are asked, depending on the situation of course, and I'm not for one moment suggesting all cases warrant prosecutions. As I said earlier, the Byelaw was intended as a sideline if you will, emphasising that it could still be used, as the Byelaws state quite clearly their meaning, and "invalid" although ambiguos you might argue, also covers most Ticket issues. I don't see it as me changing my mind, given that I mentioned fare evasion and Byelaw 18.1 in the same post.

You mentioned earlier that it's not the same as having no ticket at all? I agree, in a lot of cases. But you'll notice I mentioned "alot" of cases earlier, too? I stand by that statement also.

 

[CarterUSM]

Hope you get the job regardless Itchy.

 

[ItchyRsole]

Hope you get the job regardless Itchy.

Thanks pal. I have been offered the job so would be very disappointing to lose it at this stage for something so silly.

 

[Traineeconductor]

No they demand CRB Check for a reason. CRB Check does not just cover children it also covers vunerable adults. And also they check your convictions as your dealing with cash for Guard roles and so on.

 

[E&W Lucas]

No they demand CRB Check for a reason. CRB Check does not just cover children it also covers vunerable adults. And also they check your convictions as your dealing with cash for Guard roles and so on.

As part of your training, haven't you been told never to place yourself in a situation where you are alone with a child or vulnerable person?

The rail industry is not mentioned in the list of positions requiring a CRB check above.

Re the Heritage Railway/ Thomas situation, my information is from the individual responsible for administering the checks for one of the major heritage lines. A colleague who has been to HRA conferences, has also mentioned it being discussed there. It's a difficult one. HIT may well be acting unlawfully , but if an organisation were to challenge them, firstly it would probably cost more than the profit from the event, and secondly, HIT own the brand, so they could still decline your application to use it.

 

[SussexMan]

No they demand CRB Check for a reason. CRB Check does not just cover children it also covers vunerable adults. And also they check your convictions as your dealing with cash for Guard roles and so on.

An employer cannot legally do a CRB check just because someone "deals with cash". Convictions become Spent so that people can start again and not have it hanging over them for life.

 

[Flamingo]

CRB was not done a few years ago by FGW, I don't think it's changed.

 

[ItchyRsole]

This was the email I got from FCC so presumed they are still doing them?

Thanks previous posters some really useful info there.


Email;

Congratulations, you have been successful in the interview and First would like to make you a conditional offer of employment for the position of Customer Service Staff [First Capital Connect] at London Region.

Your offer of employment is subject to satisfactory completion of a medical (of which details will be sent in due course), pre-employment checks including references and a criminal record check (if applicable), receipt of evidence of your right to work in the UK and you will also be subject to a six month probationary period.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Ok for anyone that is interested I. Emailed the CRB people direct & just got this response which answers a lot of questions;


Dear Mr ********
*
Thank you for your email dated 16 March 2011 regarding convictions. This has
been passed to me for reply.
*
Both Standard and Enhanced checks contain details of all convictions, spent and unspent, that are held on the Police National Computer (PNC) as well as details of any cautions, reprimands or final warnings. The CRB’s role is solely to disclose any relevant information that is recorded by the police on the PNC. The CRB does not therefore determine what information is revealed on the face of a Disclosure.
*
It is advisable to contact the Data Protection Officer at your local police force headquarters for their guidance with regards to how long records will remain on the PNC. The Police are the “data controllers” of the information held on the PNC and have responsibility for inputting and amending PNCrecords.
*
For further guidance on convictions/cautions etc and the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, you could contact NACRO, the crime reduction charity through their website at http://www.nacro.org.uk/. *This is an organisation which offers support and advice to ex-offenders etc. You could also contact then on 020 7840 6464 or e-mail them via** helpline@nacro.org.uk
*
You could also contact the APEX charitable trust at http://www.apextrust.com/. *This operates a helpline to act as a help and reference service to prisoners, ex offenders, their families, friends and employers. The helpline offers employment advice to people with questions about conviction matters. The helpline number is 0870 608 4567.
*
Yours sincerely
Patricia Kevan
CRB Customer Services
*
0870 90 90 811| customerservices@crb.gsi.gov.uk *www.crb.homeoffice.gov.uk
Criminal Records Bureau, PO Box 110, Liverpool, L69 3EF

 

[E&W Lucas]

Both Standard and Enhanced checks contain details of all convictions, spent and unspent, that are held on the Police National Computer (PNC) as well as details of any cautions, reprimands or final warnings. The CRB’s role is solely to disclose any relevant information that is recorded by the police on the PNC. The CRB does not therefore determine what information is revealed on the face of a Disclosure.

Which makes the whole Rehabilitation of Offenders act meaningless at a stroke!
I'm not going soft on lawbreakers, but there really has to be a point when someone can put a minor f*** up behind them.

 

[Zoe]

Which makes the whole Rehabilitation of Offenders act meaningless at a stroke!

The CRB check is done if you will be working with children or vulnerable adults. Jobs that involve this are usually exempt from the Rehabilition of Offenders Act.

 

[connor7777]

It is discrimination if you do not give someone a job because they have a criminal record.

 

[Mvann]

I had a CRB check for work. It was deemed that I should get a personal license for the sale of alcohol. Mine was a standard check, cost £10 pounds I think and I had to apply for it myself from Scotland. My fine for a driving offfence wasn't listed, even tho that was only 4 or 5 years previous. Enhanced checks are usually for people who work with children, the elderly and the vunrable, but only if they are in your care. Hit entertainment wanting checks is a knee jerk reaction to an incident on the MHR. As long as the kids are with a parent or guardian at all times, there is no need for CRB checks on most staff at Thomas events.

 

[ItchyRsole]

Which makes the whole Rehabilitation of Offenders act meaningless at a stroke!
I'm not going soft on lawbreakers, but there really has to be a point when someone can put a minor f*** up behind them.

You are 100% right. As it suggested in the email to ring the Police HQ I did just that & the fella told me with his own mouth it will be on record for 'life' & that 'spent' never occurs (RIDICULOUS!!) I said so I have won a job fairly & squarely yet I could be refused this and more in the future for something so minor 5 years ago... He said 'blame Ian Huntley mate because that's why it's the way it is'

I asked about the rehabilitation of offenders act & he chuckled and said I know what you mean mate but that's how it is.

Charming.

 

[ItchyRsole]

**UPDATE**

Maybe someone in managment would know.

I have been given a date for my FCC medical this Thursday, would that mean I have passed the CRB or would it simply mean FCC is going through the procedures until they get the CRB result?

Seems strange they would put me through a medical to then say 'oh sorry but'

Any thoughts?