View Full Version : CRB checks. Advice please.
HR revealed today that my check came back with GBH. Now I have never been convicted of anything nor had taken to courts for anything like this. How do I go about rectifying this?
I just sent an email to the CRB people and waiting for them to get back to me. A quick search shows that the CRB check is flawed and a few people are accused wrongly every year costing them their jobs and distress etc.
Thanks.
Thanks for your input. I still believe it is flawed, if it wasn't imo this thread wont exist, or some of the few links I have read.
Can you imagine what it is like to have the Chief Microbiologist and Senior Haematology dude calling you in the middle of a busy lab with that tone that tells everyone there is a problem?
Here is another reason why it is flawed. In my previous job it was done on me about four years ago, yet nothing comes up - Enhanced. Yet somewhere along the line the latest one shows that I was convicted of GBH in 2001. How the heck did that get in there? Surely, it would have shown four years ago if I really was a convicted person and not now?
Sorry Kitten, I am a bit emotional right now. Facing the prospect of losing my job is not something that is pleasant.
Not yet. The Chief will be going to see HR the first thing tomorrow morning. I dunno when I will get a reply back, but like you mentioned there is a procedure in place. This is listed on the website.
I am new in this place you see, so am a bit on the edge.
Jesus Christ, what an awful thing to happen. Hope you manage to get it sorted!
Wow, that's quite a mistake for them to make! And the Government wonders why the general public are so cynical about ID cards and the archival of biometric information for individuals. If they can't even get the basic stuff right, what hope do they have of maintaining an accurate and reliable database on every person in the UK?
Hope you get it sorted out El, must be quite a worry at the moment. I'm sure once they're made to check back through records they can trace it right back and find that there was no charge against you and wipe it from the slate as it were :)
Meh what a shower :( Out of curiosity even if it did come back with GBH on it what grounds do they have for sacking you? The only grounds I can think of is giving false information which would be gross misconduct. These checks are supposed to prevent people with convictions of fraud/ child abuse getting positions of trust and IMO shouldn't be used as an extension of the employee evaluation process.
I would personally avoid any job that requires these checks, not because I have anything to hide but because I see potential employers being privy to that sort of information as a gross invasion of privacy.
Thanks guys. Just stepped out of the HR office and am waiting for whoever have my file to arrive, and I can then phone the CRB right there and then.
The HR person admits it aint the first time people have been accused wrongly.
For customers to query Disclosures issued to them with details they feel are inaccurate including incorrect personal details, incorrect conviction information or other discrepancies.
Sometimes the information contained on a Disclosure is included because the CRB has been unable to categorically say that a conviction does not relate to the applicant. If you receive a Disclosure with a conviction that does not relate to you, inform the CRB and the person who asked you to complete the form, as soon as possible.
Disputes 0870 90 90 778 (9.00am - 5.30pm Monday to Friday, closed Saturday)
CRB Disputes Team
PO Box 165
Liverpool
L69 3JD
Please ensure you have a copy of the Disclosure in front of you when you call as you will be asked for information from it to ensure that we have identified the correct one on our database.
Meh what a shower :( Out of curiosity even if it did come back with GBH on it what grounds do they have for sacking you? .
The reason I was upset last night was because the top dogs are howling that I know it should have been declared at the interview. Plus the fact that am on probation....so yeah, they imo have the grounds to fire me.
EDIT
There was nothing to declare in the first place.
The reason I was upset last night was because the top dogs are howling that I know it should have been declared at the interview. Plus the fact that am on probation....so yeah, they imo have the grounds to fire me.
EDIT
There was nothing to declare in the first place.
No worries, I realised that from your original post. I was just playing Devil's Advocate as IMO they haven't handled it particularly well.
Good luck though, I cant imagine there being many thing worse than having your good name doubted as a result of a clerical ****-up:cool:
They haven't got grounds to fire you. If you didn't do the crime then why would you need to declare it? It shouldn't be up to you to prove your innocence, it should be up to them to prove your guilt. They've asked you if it's true, you've denied it and stated there must be some mistake. AFAIC I'd follow it up but that doesn't mean your employer has the right to assume you're a liar. Unfortunately, and I hate to generalise, but HR people tend to be of a certain "ilk" - just an observation I've made over the years.
Admiral Huddy
06-11-2008, 10:26
I would seek advice from CAB.
Admiral Huddy
06-11-2008, 10:42
The system is bollocks to be honest. My wife and i have to be CRB checked every 3 or 4 years or so, including any adults that potentially stay over night.
Firstly, 3 years is a long time between checks.
Sencondly, are we really going to check everyone that stays over night?
If he's on a probationary period iirc they don't need grounds to fire him.
I meant logistical, practical and moral grounds rather than strictly legal grounds - it's not as though an employer would fire someone without any reason anyway. Also, they'd have to be very careful about how they worded any reason to fire him. If they were, for example, to let it be known to people that he has a record of GBH when he hasn't, they could be held accountable.
I think he needs to speak to the CRB before he goes anywhere else, obviously there are procedures in place to deal with this sort of thing.
Agreed - it's one monumental screw-up though. I'd be livid if an official body was happily telling people, on request, that I had a criminal past.
Actually that's exactly what they are there for - to make sure that the person you are employing hasn't got a criminal record, and if they have, what they have it for. Surely that would form part of any evaluation process that you would put in place if you have people working in positions of trust at your company.
Agreed again but it sounds like they've assumed El is lying and that's just unacceptable. From the admittedly limited information we have, it seems they're arguing that he should have declared it at the interview rather than being concerned about whether it could be just a mistake. The fact is that as an employer, having learned information about an employee that could jeopardise their employment, they should have verified the information with the employee concerned. Giving El the chance to deny the allegation would preclude any issues about him needing to declare a criminal act at the interview stage.
I understand that, but lets face it, they aren't stupid - if he's on probation and they want to fire him they can do - that's the end of it - they won't say it's to do with the check and he would struggle to prove that it is.
Yes, if he's on probation and they want an excuse to sack him, they'll find something. It's unlikely, for sensible employers anyway, to dismiss someone for no decent reason. Hiring someone is an expensive process and that's before you have to start paying them! ;)
Again, it's the police who have said he has a criminal past, the CRB have simply supplied the information given to them by the police.
I just can't get over that - it's really disturbing that the Police could make such a damning mistake about an individual.
For the last point I'm not referring to El's case in particular, just that I can't see how checking whether someone has a criminal record isn't something that would be beneficial to a company, or shouldn't be - which is what Mok seems to be suggesting.
If that's what he is suggesting then I can't agree either. Checks are *absolutely* necessary because there are some really dodgy people out there. As an employer, you have to protect your business for the sake of yourself, your clients and the rest of your employees. Further, it may be mandatory for you to make reasonable investigations into a prospective employee's past for the sake of ISO, legal or insurance requirements.
Kittens right here.
When working for the bobby as a civvy my job was (well everything - bar stewards rubbish system) but mainly classifying crimes, allocating them out, ensuring they have been dealt with correctly and then marking up any detected crimes/charges or undetected and filing them. (This is where you would be marked up. If you have been involved in any crime or occurrence reported to the police your name WILL be on their system but have to be sure to be correctly marked up as the relevant person – ie offender, aggrieved, witness, reporter etc.)
During my time there, a new software system was put in place meaning all files (closed and new) had to be transferred over, rechecked, reclassified and filed.
If you could imagine the enormity of the job... well. It was stupid.
People who were full time weren't trained properly on the software and many temp positions opened up… and those who filled them had to be trained via us untrained lot. (I mean – OMG how much of a mess was going to happen here! Any one could see that!)
In the end there were so many hundreds of **** ups being made and then the files being closed (meaning they were almost impossible to dig back out again) that we were in fact going backwards on ourselves than forwards. My manager was _THE_ rubbishness and in the end I created a manual by myself - in whatever time I could - using every flipping resource I could research and get my hands on - to at least attempt to sort out some of the mess that was being made. I also set up training courses too and eventually it was implemented after my perseverance - although despite not being my job I had to train half the police staff in my area on the system.
Now I'm not saying it was all down to me that the system started to get back on track and people were being trained properly, but if I hadn't of done what I had there would be possibly hundreds upon hundreds of people out their wrongly filed. I am also not saying I didn’t make muck ups – I *know* I did – how couldn’t you when you’ve had bare minimum training!! But at least I tried to rectify where I was going wrong and sort something out.
Honestly I have never worked in such a mess and the whole system and arrogance of the people I worked with eventually made me have a break down.
It's a shame really because despite working my butt off for that place (and the whole of the BCU) and getting thanks from the chief and all... the people around me just kicked me down and continued to **** up with files because they didn't like the fact a younger person who had been there 10 - 20 years less than them had the initiative and drive to figure out what we were *all* doing wrong and put it right as opposed to moaning about it.
Can you tell I'm bitter!!!??? For you El - I am so so sorry this kind of thing has had to happen but if I'm completely frank it really doesn't surprise me in the slightest.
You don't happen to live in the Hampshire BCU do you?! :p If you do then the above is most probably why there has been a huge HUGE muck up. As said all cases had to be transferred across and that was… around 3 – 4 years ago… so if you are on their system somewhere someone may have mucked up your name and filed it wrong.
Wouldn’t it be crazy after all of this if you did reside in the Hampshire area (or were atleast involved in an occurrence/crime in that area) and it was because of this is screwed up.
Dear God I hope it wasn’t me!! I know I made muck ups with minor details (albeit very VERY rarely) but I should imagine like crazy I never mucked up classifying someone as charged of not!! That’s just enormously dumb.
Erk.
Hope it gets sorted asap xx
...I never mucked up classifying someone as charged of not!! That’s just enormously dumb.
Just imagine the possible potential ramifications of such potentially easy mistakes - it doesn't bear thinking about and that's why, as I said earlier, I'm so cynical about the idea of a database accurately and reliably representing a UK citizen as an abstract entity. Truly scary stuff but not hard to believe unfortunately.
Yup.
It's awful.
Seriously - the amount of slopey shouldered people I worked with was amazing. Some cases I was told I had to file them as "non occurrence" or "disputes" when they were quite clearly burglarys and all sorts. And it's frustrating knowing that most of the reasons for them to file them as a non crime was to keep the figures down!! I specifically recall having to file a case on child abuse which ended up as a non-charge. That... broke my heart. Followed by being told that someone having their face smashed and teeth knocked out (broken jaw) was not GBH but ABH.... it just made me so so so angry.
Don't get me wrong - police officers are *immense* and 95% of them work their butts off and do everything they can *in their powers* to help out the public. Sadly though due to so many faults (lack of staff, resources, money, time, government pressures and power crazed egits who reside above them and have slopey shoulders) they sometimes struggle to do what they would given half the chance.
I love the police in so many ways but equally find it frustrating. I would - for sure - never do the above civvy work again. EVER. At least as a bobby you have some powers to argue for and against cases but for me I had no powers and when an inspector tells you "file it or I will"... and then you refuse and they file it and you can't change it. Well. That just left me in shreds.
I got the info from HR and it was caution for causing GBH about 8 years ago or so. Again I haven't been cautioned for such offence, nor have I been involved in one.
Anyway, I have made a query on this and am awaiting the first forms to come through the post. The lady from the CRB assured it should be relatively straightened out, but tbqfh I will believe this when it is done. In the mean time I have to work with this hanging over my head.
The head of the HR seems to come across like I am a criminal and asking me to think to that time of alleged incident. I'm thinking wtf? There is nothing to think of, I have done nothing like that. Anyway, I will keep you guys updated. Thanks for all your input.
The head of the HR seems to come across like I am a criminal and asking me to think to that time of alleged incident. I'm thinking wtf? There is nothing to think of, I have done nothing like that.
And there it is. It's the fact that they maintain an attitude towards you that you might have a criminal past despite you denying it. They should assume the criminal record is a mistake until *proven* otherwise and they should treat you accordingly - i.e. not placing you under any overt suspicion.
I'm not going to tell you what you should do but if it were me, unless the job was perfect in every other way, I'd tell them to shove it.
dirtydog
06-11-2008, 14:03
Wow, that's quite a mistake for them to make! And the Government wonders why the general public are so cynical about ID cards and the archival of biometric information for individuals. If they can't even get the basic stuff right, what hope do they have of maintaining an accurate and reliable database on every person in the UK?
Indeed :(
Von Smallhausen
06-11-2008, 15:11
It seems to me El that someone may have used your details when being dealt with by the police.
Also, it is strange that the caution is for GBH. That usually indicates more serious injury and is usually not cautionable for a first offence.
dirtydog
06-11-2008, 15:32
It seems to me El that someone may have used your details when being dealt with by the police.
Also, it is strange that the caution is for GBH. That usually indicates more serious injury and is usually not cautionable for a first offence.
Quite, one would hope that GBH would never be dealt with by a mere caution, but these days... :confused:
I'm not going to tell you what you should do but if it were me, unless the job was perfect in every other way, I'd tell them to shove it.
I agree with you, but it is something I really want as there is massive prospect for me to be multi-disciplinary [become specialised in different areas of lab sciences] which will come in handy in some few years time.
Also, quitting will probably appear to the head of HR like yeah the system was right.
I asked what will happen from now on, but I was told to "carry on as normal and good luck with the sorting out" If this indicates the end of it I really cant say, I'm not sure if HR are carrying out their own investigation - will crb deal with them??? Whatever the case, I will see how things pans out for next week when I should have received the documents.
It seems to me El that someone may have used your details when being dealt with by the police.
Also, it is strange that the caution is for GBH. That usually indicates more serious injury and is usually not cautionable for a first offence.
I just looked at the disclosure form again and it is "Assault occasioning Actual Bodily Harm on XXXXX XXXX" so no it is not GBH like I mentioned before.
Will the people who know how explains what will happen from here please? So I get the form and state my side that it is something I haven't done/ state my innocence. CRB goes to investigate and should put it right. Simple right? What happens if they are adamant it was me? [Just preparing myself for worst case scenario here]
I would guess that they look up actual police and court records regarding your name around that date? If they find nothing then they note it as an error and wipe it. This is only a guess though.
I would suggest E| that you put something in writing to your employers as well. Explain that it has come as much of a shock to you as it has to them, it will be ironed out and during this period you expect to be dealt with dignity AND without prejudice. Moreover I would also take advice from your local Trade Union Rep and/or CAB. I'm sure it will iron itself out but you don't want to be in a position whereby they loose patience whilst it gets investigated and you could end up being out of work whilst your still on probation. Good Luck dude.
Von Smallhausen
07-11-2008, 14:22
I just looked at the disclosure form again and it is "Assault occasioning Actual Bodily Harm on XXXXX XXXX" so no it is not GBH like I mentioned before.
Will the people who know how explains what will happen from here please? So I get the form and state my side that it is something I haven't done/ state my innocence. CRB goes to investigate and should put it right. Simple right? What happens if they are adamant it was me? [Just preparing myself for worst case scenario here]
Right,
Fill in your forms and see what happens. If the CRB insist it was you then you should perhaps consult a solicitor to help you.
There will be records on police computers to be checked.
When someone is cautioned for any offence they will have had a DNA sampla taken and have their photograph taken also and if you have not done this as you say then there should be little problem in proving that you are not responsible for this.
There is one question I would like to ask but not on the forum. You have mail. :)
Oh thanks. That cleared things up. I sent you a mail already.
UPDATE
So the deadline for Police to provide preliminary evidence have come and gone. Only now I have to wait again for final demand by the CRB to the police. In the mean time, this hangs over my head - I wasn't put on the system at my work place hence resulting in not getting paid etc [was later sorted].
I am starting to have a new hatred for the police tbh. [No offence to the police people on here] No one should be made to go through an ordeal like this.
Hi there guys.
Just thought I should put a quick update on this thread.
As it stand, its been one long and uphill battle to get to the bottom of the matter. After getting Solicitor involved etc, the police finally admitted in writing that it was indeed an Human error. This is in writing and subsequent Enhanced CRB checks have verified this.
The matter is now in heading to court as I look to get back my loss earnings and something called "Hurt to feeling" [Apparently, Americans call this Emotional damage], among other things.
I can't comment too much on it now for obvious reasons. :)
Thanks to everyone.
Bloody hell Raz, long time no see :D
Glad to hear things are moving in the right direction for you.
Bloody hell Raz, long time no see :D
Glad to hear things are moving in the right direction for you.
Thanks. I'm good man.
Back in Uni after the whole fiasco.:)
Glad to see this being straightened out. Are you still in the same job?
Glad to see this being straightened out. Are you still in the same job?
No. I had to leave.
Basically put it this way, the CRB and police disclosed information that was never true about me to my employer. Also, Police made it look like I was guilty and subsequently leading to "obvious outcome".
We do keep hearing about crap like this happening. People getting bad CRBs because of people with similar or identical names, even if ages and location were completely different. I wonder how many times they'll need to face legal action before someone fixes the ongoing disaster?
If people are being wrongly accused like that, how many are getting clean CRBs who shouldn't?
We do keep hearing about crap like this happening. People getting bad CRBs because of people with similar or identical names, even if ages and location were completely different. I wonder how many times they'll need to face legal action before someone fixes the ongoing disaster?
If people are being wrongly accused like that, how many are getting clean CRBs who shouldn't?
This event for me was an eye opener.
I used to have a mentality that "the system cannot be wrong", but once it happened to me, my tune was changed.
During the whole fiasco, I read from people who had similar experience. One of them applied for the position of a teacher, and a CRB check on him "revealed" he raped someone in the past. Needless to say, he wasn't employed, but he later took the Police to court and won a decent payout.
The whole CRB needs to be scrapped - including the police checks - and replaced with something more efficient. From what I can tell, the records are fragmented, for example, you have a so called central database where operators appears to be able to make amendment without following proper protocols etc, then you have the local police station records too where anything can be recorded. Oh, and these records are kept for 100 years.:shocked:
Just to mention briefly about my case - I complained to the ICO [Independent body on information] and they have it written in black and white that the police did not follow the proper rules and it appeared they broke the DPA rules. [some sort of information act or something]
What makes it even depressing is how it takes forever to get a response from either the police or CRB. They seem to just waste time and put across many red tapes in the way as possible in order to frustrate people.
Anyway, I consider myself lucky, there are people with worse cases than mine. :)
We do keep hearing about crap like this happening. People getting bad CRBs because of people with similar or identical names, even if ages and location were completely different. I wonder how many times they'll need to face legal action before someone fixes the ongoing disaster?
If people are being wrongly accused like that, how many are getting clean CRBs who shouldn't?
The CRB system will default to manual checks if there is a similarity in dob/location/ that matches the name. It is then up to the police to provide a yes or no answer - the CRB can't get any more involved in that, so it's completely down to how much resource the police have and will assign to it. The system is designed to pick up any possible match so as not to miss anyone who *might* be recorded on PNC. Due to that there will always be false positives and that's the way the Government want the system designed. The CRB get more stick than any other Home Office agency I know when in actual fact, they are probably the highest performing and have saved millions of children from being exposed to paedophiles & villains. Most issues are in the way the system is designed and that is exactly what the government asked for.
DPA = Data Protection Act, 1998
Glad it's getting sorted. Shame it had to take lawyers to sort it though. :(
The CRB system will default to manual checks if there is a similarity in dob/location/ that matches the name. It is then up to the police to provide a yes or no answer - the CRB can't get any more involved in that, so it's completely down to how much resource the police have and will assign to it.
One of the things I have to do at work is fingerprint people who are having CRB checks and have a similar name/dob/location to someone with a criminal record.
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.