Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • love the extra £1000 charge for confidentialy there BF   Also OP even if they don't offer OOC it doesn't mean your claim isn't good. I had 3 against EVRi that were heard over the last 3 weeks. They sent me emails asking me to discontinue as I wouldn't win. Went infront of a judge and won all 3.    Just remember the law is on your side. The judges will be aware of this.   Where you can its important to try to point out at the hearing the specific part of the contract they breached. I found this was very helpful and the Judge made reference to it when they gave their judgements and it seemed this was pretty important as once you have identified a specific breach the matter turns straight to liability. From there its a case of pointing out the unlawfullness of their insurance and then that should be it.
    • I know dx and thanks again for yours and others help. I was 99.999% certain last payment was over six years ago if not longer.  👍
    • Paragraph 23 – "standard industry practice" – put this in bold type. They are stupid to rely on this and we might as well carry on emphasising how stupid they are. I wonder why they could even have begun to think some kind of compelling argument – "the other boys do it so I do it as well…" Same with paragraph 26   Paragraph 45 – The Defendants have so far been unable to produce any judgements at any level which disagree with the three judgements…  …court, but I would respectfully request…   Just the few amendments above – and I think it's fine. I think you should stick to the format that you are using. This has been used lots of times and has even been applauded by judges for being meticulous and clear. You aren't a professional. Nobody is expecting professional standards and although it's important that you understand exactly what you are doing – you don't really want to come over to the judge that you have done this kind of thing before. As a litigant in person you get a certain licence/leeway from judges and that is helpful to you – especially if you are facing a professional advocate. The way this is laid out is far clearer than the mess that you will get from EVRi. Quite frankly they undermine their own credibility by trying to say that they should win simply because it is "standard industry practice". It wouldn't at all surprise me if EVRi make you a last moment offer of the entire value of your claim partly to avoid judgement and also partly to avoid the embarrassment of having this kind of rubbish exposed in court. If they do happen to do that, then you should make sure that they pay everything. If they suddenly make you an out-of-court offer and this means that they are worried that they are going to lose and so you must make sure that you get every penny – interest, costs – everything you claimed. Finally, if they do make you an out-of-court offer they will try to sign you up to a confidentiality agreement. The answer to that is absolutely – No. It's not part of the claim and if they want to settle then they settle the claim as it stands and don't try add anything on. If they want confidentiality then that will cost an extra £1000. If they don't like it then they can go do the other thing. Once you have made the amendments suggested above – it should be the final version. court,. I don't think we are going to make any more changes. Your next job good to make sure that you are completely familiar with it all. That you understand the arguments. Have you made a court familiarisation visit?
    • just type no need to keep hitting quote... as has already been said, they use their own criteria. if a person is not stated as linked to you on your file then no cant hurt you. not all creditors use every CRA provider, there are only 3 main credit file providers mind, the rest are just 3rd party data sharers. if you already have revolving credit on your file there is no need to apply for anything just 'because' you need to show you can handle money. if you have bank account(s) and a mortgage which you are servicing (paying) then nothing more can improve your score, despite what these 'scam' sites claiml  its all a CON!!  
  • 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
      • 160 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

Criminal Records Checks - Are They Lawful?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2904 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

Just wondering if anyone knows anything about when employers are allowed to ask for a criminal records check.

 

As far as I'm aware, CRB checks - Standard and Enhanced Disclosures, can only be issued in certain circumstances. This would include, for example, those working with children and vulnerable adults, foster carers, particular professions such as accountancy etc.

 

Thing is, and it's not the first time, I see an organisation insisting on a CRB check (this time the AA) for employees.

 

I have been through the categories (on the CRB's website) of those kinds of position which allow for a CRB check to be done, yet can find no indication that a car breakdown call centre operator can be lawfully checked via disclosure of their criminal record.

 

What's the position, then? Is the above scenario lawful? And if not, what remedy is available if a disclosure is unlawfully issued?

 

I have had dealings with the CRB, and know what they are like (pretty bad), but it seems there is a lot of blatant law flouting going on. Am I wrong about something here, or are employers and the CRB routinely breaking the law?

Edited by samsmoot
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Old_andrew2018

I believe that an employer can state that job applicants will have CRB checks, it does however make a mockery of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only people working or having regular contact with children or the vulnerable need to be CRB checked, and any old offences which could be considered a risk (fraud, sex offences, drugs etc) would be listed, and quite rightly in my view.

 

However if organisations are doing CRB checks which are not necessary, then this is wrong. All the CRB forms ask the reason for the check - e.g. are you working with children or vulnerable adults, which suggests that this is relevant to needing the check.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just found out that there is something called a 'Police Check', which costs a tenner - perhaps this is what they mean.

 

I know from personal experience that the CRB have issued Disclosures that were unlawful to obtain (they were not reall to blame for sending them out in the first place, but were wrong in the way they handled the one complaint so far made), and after seeing what looked like more potential breaches of the law happening a couple of times recently my interest in this subject was resurrected.

 

I think I should see if the AA, to start with, has anything on this for potential employees. Deary me, what a busybody I am...

Link to post
Share on other sites

perhaps a CRB check is required for a job with the AA as an employee may have to meet people - example - an AA person meets up with lone female to fix car

 

just a thought

 

Yes, jack1966 - maybe they would like it done for this reason, but that wouldn't fit into any of the job categories on the CRB website for which an exempted question can be asked - i.e. about convictions now spent.

 

I emailed the AA, BTW, as they mention on their online job application form about spent convictions, so I asked them to clear it up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...and they said, "We will run a credit check and a Basic standard disclosure."

 

Am awaiting email for clarification - a Basic Disclosure is allowed, as it wouldn't mention spent convictions, and the information contained in it is in the public domain anyway. A Standard Disclosure does identify spent convictions, and the AA shouldn't be able to obtain one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I share your concerns both a child (i.e 17 year old) and a vulnerable adult can drive cars and be members of the AA!

PLEASE NOTE:

 

I limit myself to responding to threads where I feel I have enough knowledge to make a useful contribution. My advice (and indeed any advice on this type of forum) should only be seen as a pointer to something you may wish to investigate further. Never act on any forum advice without confirmation from an accountable source.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I share your concerns both a child (i.e 17 year old) and a vulnerable adult can drive cars and be members of the AA!

 

 

16 year olds are in the workplace, so any job could involve access to "kids" of that sort of age. I cannot believe that it is therefore ok to check every employee. I would also argue that people classified as "vulnerable adults" can also be in work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've become more and more concerned about the number of jobs that require a CRB check, I work in IT support yet there are numerous jobs where I have applied and need to agree to a CRB check.

 

i had an interview at a school recently and this required one which is not surprising but how about a hospital ?, an insurance compony ?. Its all getting a bit strange.

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

standard disclosures do not show spent convictions

 

Have to correct you there, jack:

 

'Standard Disclosures contain details of all spent and unspent convictions on record, plus details of any cautions, reprimands or warnings.'

 

Source: CRB Frequently Asked Questions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Arnold Clark also advertise jobs that need a Disclosure Check and I wondered why?

 

Sales Support Administrator Job, Aberdeen - s1jobs.com

 

I have asked them what type of disclosure would be needed.

 

As I mentioned, if it's just a Basic Disclosure they are after then no worries.

Link to post
Share on other sites

samsmoot, i find it a bit odd that you say that standard disclosures contain details of spent convictions, as i have had many, (CRB checks that is) and the standard disclosure does not show my misspent youth criminal activity of stealing a bar of chocolate (yes i was charged), yet on my enhanced CRB's it does.

 

and boy does it look bad, although it was a only a bar of fruit and nut, (yes i realise the implications - now) it doesn't say that, it only shows the law act that i was charged with and that looks a million times worse.

 

and i was an 'adult' aged 18 and knew everything :)

Edited by jack1966
additions
Link to post
Share on other sites

AA said it's a Basic Disclosure.

 

I could be barking up the wrong tree, as things have changed since I last had dealings with the CRB. Until recently there was just a Standard or Enhanced disclosure, the Basic check being brought in around 2009, I believe.

 

It may seem I am a bit too ready to think the worst, but when you know that in the past Enhanced Disclosures have been unlawfully obtained, and that the CRB were less than bothered about it, you tend to feel a little outraged when you see signs of more possible misdemeanours.

 

Probably nothing to worry about after all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 years later...

As far as I am aware any employer can ask the question from any applicant.

 

 

The problem is that people get worried and admit things they are not legally obliged to, which almost always results in them being unsuccessful with the application.

 

 

What I am unclear about is whether the employer is actually able to get the actual CRB check from the authorities.

 

 

If the offence committed bares no relation to any element of the job role

why is it being used to deselect applicants who have committed an offence (possibly a very minor crime, many years ago)

The real issue is "Who polices the police"

 

They can ask the question but they should not be able to obtain the actual Disclosure document.

 

The jobs they have are not in the list of job categories allowed that type of acces to an individuals confidential information.

Its so wrong

Link to post
Share on other sites

thread is 6yrs old!

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

perhaps a CRB check is required for a job with the AA as an employee may have to meet people - example - an AA person meets up with lone female to fix car

 

just a thought

 

Yep your right. A few years ago a woman rang her breakdown service, he came and made some pretext to go and get something. Returned wearing a mask and attacked and raped her. I think the AA are right to ask for. A CRB check. I personally don't want a rapist, rehabilitated or not, attending my car when I'm alone. I'm funny like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...