Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • This is a ridiculous situation.  The lender has made so many stupid errors of judgement.  I refuse to bow down and willingly 'pay' for their mistakes.  I really want to put this behind me and move on.  I can't yet. 
    • Peter McCormack says he has secured a 15-year lease on the club's Bedford ground.View the full article
    • ae - i have no funds to appoint lawyers.   My point about most caggers getting lost is simply due to so many layers of legal issues that is bound to confuse.  
    • Lenders have a legal obligation to sell the property for the best price they can get. If they feel the offer is low they won't sell it, because it's likely the borrower will say the same.   Yes.  But every interested buyer was offering within a range - based on local market sales evidence.  Shelter site says a lender is not allowed to wait for the market to improve. Why serve a dilapidations notice? If it's in the terms of the lease to maintain the property to a good standard, then serve an S146 notice instead as it's a clear breach of the lease.   The dilapidations notice was a legal first step.  Freeholders have to give time to leaseholders to remedy.  Lender lawyers advised the property was going to be sold and the new buyer would undertake the work.  Their missive came shortly before contracts were given to buyer.  The buyer lawyer and freehold lawyers were then in contact.  The issue of dilapidations remedy was discussed..  But then lender reneged.  There was a few months where neither I nor freeholders were sure what was going on.  Then suddenly demolition works started.   Before one issues a s146 one has to issue a LBA.  That is eventually what happened. ...legal battle took 3y to resolve. Again, order them to revert it as they didn't have permission to do the works, or else serve an S146 notice for breach of the lease   A s146 was served.  It took 3y but the parties came to a settlement.   (They couldn't revert as they had ripped out irreplaceable historical features). The lease has already been extended once so they have no right to another extension. It seems pretty easy to just get the lawyer to say no and stick by those terms as the law is on your side there.  That's not the case   One can ask for another extension.  In this instance the freeholders eventually agreed with a proviso for the receiver not to serve another. You wouldn't vary a lease through a lease extension.  Correct.  But receiver lawyer was an idiot.   He made so many errors.  No idea why the receiver instructed him?  He used to work for lender lawyers. I belatedly discovered he was sacked for dishonesty and fined a huge sum by the sra  (though kept his licence).  He eventually joined another firm and the receiver bizarrely chose him to handle the extension.  Again he messed up - which is why the matter still hasn't been properly concluded.   In reality, its quite clear the lender/ receiver were just trying to overwhelm me (as trustee and leaseholder) with work (and costs) due to so many legal  issues.  Also they tried to twist things (as lawyers sometimes do).  They tried to create a situation where the freeholders would get a wasted costs order - the intent was to bankrupt the freeholders so they could grab the fh that way.   That didn't happen.  They are still trying though.  They owe the freeholders legal costs (s60) and are refusing to pay.  They are trying to get the freeholders to refer the matter to the tribunal - simply to incur more costs (the freeholders don't want and cant's afford to incur)  Enfranchisement isn't something that can be "voided", it's in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 that leaseholders have the right to.... The property does not qualify under 67 Act.  Their notice was invalid and voided. B petition was struck out. So this is dealt with then.  That action was dealt with yes.   But they then issued a new claim out of a different random court - which I'm still dealing with alone.  This is where I have issues with my old lawyer. He failed to read important legal docs  (which I kept emailing and asking if he was dealing with) and  also didn't deal with something crucial I pointed out.  This lawyer had the lender in a corner and he did not act. Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been ....  Redact and scan said evidence up for others to look at?   I could.  But the evidence is clear cut.  Receiver email to lender and lender lawyer: "our strategy for many months  has been for ceo to get the property".  A lender is not allowed to influence the receivership.   They clearly were.  And the law firm were complicit.  The same firm representing the lender and the ceo in his personal capacity - conflict of interest?   I  also have evidence of the lender trying to pay a buyer to walk.  I was never supposed to know about this.  But I was given copies of messages from the receiver "I need to see you face to face, these things are best not put in writing".  No need to divulge all here.  But in hindsight it's clear the lender/ receiver tried - via 2 meetings - to get rid of this buyer (pay large £s) to clear the path for the ceo.   One thing I need to clarify - if a receiver tells a lender to do - or not to do - something should the lender comply? 
    • Why ask for advice if you think it's too complex for the forum members to understand? You'd be better engaging a lawyer. Make sure he has understood all the implications. Stick with his advice. If it doesn't conform to your preconceived opinion then pause and consider whether maybe he's right.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

CRB checks and employment


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5530 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi guys,

 

I have applied for a job within the financial sector, and they company have said that they wish to carry out a CRB check.

 

I know that I DO have previous convictions. My question is would they bar me from employment? (The convictions are not related to theft or dishonesty, so i see no reason why they should be a problem with me being employed within finance.)

 

Can someone please give me some clarification on this ?

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Martinkay,

 

To be honest it all depends on what the company policy is and what they are looking for, some places are ok as long as you own up to everything on your file (including parking fines) others are looking for certain types of offences i.e. fraud for financial, sex offences for schools etc.

 

Most of them take into account the types of offences and the length of time since they were committed. It they weren't serious and were a while ago then they should class them as spent or not relevant.

 

Hope that helps, I'm CRB and SC cleared myself so know the process a little bit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi thanks.

 

Okay, so I shall have to own up to it then because I was convicted only 2 years ago of indecent exposure, which is classed as a sexual offence even though I was only caught peeing on the side of the road.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, you will need to inform them of any convictions, both spent or unspent.

im sure if you explain to them what happenned they will understand.

 

mind you, a conviction for having a wee is a bit steep isnt it?, i thought they usually issue a fixed penalty notice for it?.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Erm yeah, but it wasnt the first time.

Lets just say that in my old job i worked outside a lot and leave it at that.

 

Its an embarrasing one though to put down but guess ill have to. no doubt they will all have a laugh and a giggle about it and i probably wont get the job :S

 

Either that or if by some miracle I DO get the job even though i have a conviction then i can see them replacing my office chair with a commode for a laugh or something.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't worry too much about it, is there a section where you can put exactly what the offense was for rather than the offence code? (It's been a while since I filled mine in)

 

I know doormen who have been convicted of assault and violent affray yet still managed to get SIA licenses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi thanks,

 

Okay, I shall try not to worry too much about it then. To be honest I think the law needs to be changed.

 

Instead of these companies seeing what convictions you have in all their nitty gritty detail they should instead the CRB for "advice on employment which is relevant to them" for instance if you were convicted of fraud or dishonesty then it should be the companies reponsibility to let the CRB agency know that the person is applying for a job within the financial sector. And then depending on the relevance of the conviction the CRB should only be there to dispense advice with a simple letter saying something like:

 

Cleared to work in finance: No or Yes

 

Like wise if the comapny was an educational establishment or an elderly peoples home then the CRB check should read:

 

Cleared to work with vulnerable people: No or Yes

 

That to me would be a much better system because despite my conviction it would read "Cleared to work in finance: Yes" - because my conviction bears no relevance on the job.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thing is though if they did it like that then it wouldnt show up other potentially worrying crimes.

 

for example a serial flasher might get a job working in a bank where he is in close proximty with women.

his CRB says hes ok to work in finance because he has never been convicted of theft or fraud, but whos to say he isnt going to get his john thomas out at work one day or grope someone up?.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear what you are saying but there are women everywhere. so does that mean he would never be allowed to work again?

 

thats really ridiculous, because then if he cant find work ever because of the studpid system that we ALREADY have then it is every tax payer in the country that has to foot the bill - through paying him unemployment benefits.

Link to post
Share on other sites

why is it a stupid system?, are you saying that a pervert has the right to molest women (or whatever their chosen fetish) at will?.

 

 

the reason that the CRB system was introduced was so that employers could assess the employees they were taking on for any crimes relating to their chosen profession, plus other crimes that were liable to cause problems, for example somebody who has never been convicted for theft may apply for a job working in a busy shop, but said person has had several convictions for anti social behavior or assault, he may not steal anything but he might end up punching someone.

 

The CRB system is fine as it is, if you have nothingto hide, then you are given plenty of opportunity to come clean and explain your actions beforehand.

 

besides, many jobs dont require a CRB check anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it IS a stupid system.

 

If someone wants to molest women then they are going to do it anyway regardless of whether they are working or not. I think they are more likely to molest women down some dark alley or in the park than they are at their desk! - which to me proves that the system is stupid.

 

And a serial women molesterer for instance is going to have a hell of a lot more time on their hands to carry out their fetishes if they cannot find employment.......

 

......The old addage "The devil makes light work for idle hands" !!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi thanks,

 

Okay, I shall try not to worry too much about it then. To be honest I think the law needs to be changed.

 

Instead of these companies seeing what convictions you have in all their nitty gritty detail they should instead the CRB for "advice on employment which is relevant to them" for instance if you were convicted of fraud or dishonesty then it should be the companies reponsibility to let the CRB agency know that the person is applying for a job within the financial sector. And then depending on the relevance of the conviction the CRB should only be there to dispense advice with a simple letter saying something like:

 

Cleared to work in finance: No or Yes

 

Like wise if the comapny was an educational establishment or an elderly peoples home then the CRB check should read:

 

Cleared to work with vulnerable people: No or Yes

 

That to me would be a much better system because despite my conviction it would read "Cleared to work in finance: Yes" - because my conviction bears no relevance on the job.

 

This is effectively what's happening from this Autumn for working with vulnerable adults/children. Google "Vetting & Barring Scheme"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, good! and about time !!!!

 

So maybe now when I apply for any jobs in the future my human right to confidentiality is protected whilst at the same time safeguarding our more vulnerable members of society. About time !!!

 

You may think that, but I prefer not to be permanently monitored by the state - especially so given their propensity for screw-ups with data.

 

I am a long-serving school governor in two schools. I have nothing to hide - my CRB disclosures are clear - but when ISA takes over, I am seriously thinking of quitting for good.

 

Government departments and agencies have too much personal data slopping around and they are careless with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why though? Hopefully ISA will be a lot more closely monitored. I can see where you are coming from BUT..........

 

......In the past 5 years 11,500 people have been wrongly branded as criminals by the CRB, - these innocent people have had their lives and liveliehood ruined by a crappy and inefficient service. BUT..............and this is what the article i read DOESNT mention............

 

.....If 11,500 people have been wrongly branded as criminals then we would also be right to assume that means that 11,500 criminals have also got through the system and are now working with children or the elderly.

 

I have decided to turn down that job offer on the basis of what I have read about the CRB.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why though? Hopefully ISA will be a lot more closely monitored. I can see where you are coming from BUT..........

 

......In the past 5 years 11,500 people have been wrongly branded as criminals by the CRB, - these innocent people have had their lives and liveliehood ruined by a crappy and inefficient service. BUT..............and this is what the article i read DOESNT mention............

 

.....If 11,500 people have been wrongly branded as criminals then we would also be right to assume that means that 11,500 criminals have also got through the system and are now working with children or the elderly.

 

I have decided to turn down that job offer on the basis of what I have read about the CRB.

 

But the ISA's baseline information is still from CRB..

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree the CRB is a must, to protect vulnerable people/children. However, is it really necessary to inform a current employer that when a 44 year old man was 16 he got done for riding a moped without a tax disc? And for the employer to then call him in for an explanation with a threat hanging over him about losing his job for not telling them on his application? That is truly big brother gone mad, Unison stepped in and slapped the employer, but the grief this man went through for over a month because of this enhanced CRB and for something he could barely remember doing anyway as he was a child at the time is out of all proportion.

 

Maybe one day they will get it right!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...