OP stated they had been arrested, but not charged (let alone convicted). They DON'T have a criminal record, but do have an entry on the PNC. That information stays on the PNC (Police National Computer) for life, but doesn't get released in a standard DBS. It only MIGHT get released for an Enhanced DBS (eDBS) check ... but it would be incredibly unlikely. (The rational behind this is that eDBS's allow for 'information at Chief Officer of Police's discretion' ..... this covers the 2 'barring lists' and is also intended for the scenario where someone has multiple arrests or investigations, where safeguarding is a concern .... it was brought in after the Soham murders / Ian Huntley case, where the information known about the now-convicted child murderer may have prevented his employment in a school, had it been made available). So, for the sake of accuracy and completeness, arrests stay on the PNC for life, wont appear in a standard DBS, MIGHT appear in an eDBS, but in reality, would be the exception rather than the norm, and I can't see them being released to a defense barrister. What then if the defence found out a different way, and brought it up in court?. Again, unlikely, but the important feature is that the judge would make sure they trod very carefully!. They MIGHT consider using it if there were other factors that allowed them to try to cast doubts as to the truthfulness of your evidence, but on its own : No way. Anyone MIGHT be arrested (if a seemingly plausible complaint been made against them)! The approach to take if it did come up is to be truthful. "Yes, I was arrested. It arose from a vexatious complaint. I wasn't charged, let alone convicted. That could happen to any one of us, if a vexatious complaint gets made" Far better that than lying, saying you'd never been arrested, and getting caught in a lie : that would ruin your credibility. I'm incredibly doubtful it will even come up, though.

How many uses, over how long?

From what you’ve posted, it absolutely is in the public interest to prosecute. You’ve fare evaded multiple times. Your reason for doing so is impecunity: but if they accept that as a valid reason they’d have to create a new scheme to allow free travel outside of the existing ones. So that’s mitigation rather than defence. A conviction carries stigmata and inconvenience : but that is one of the downsides of committing an offence, and one of the reasons to prosecute is deterrence : so you saying it will affect you doesn’t make it not in the public interest to prosecute - it is in the public interest but just not in your interest …. I come back to the fact that you haven’t really given TFL a reason not to prosecute, and (by being caught in a lie about it being once only) given them a reason to harden their attitude (even if they haven’t seen your comments here about lack of remorse / wishing “you’d just done a runner” . Why shouldn’t they prosecute?

I (and other respondents) always advise “not getting caught in a lie” it hardens their response. Why would they now believe protestations of remorse and “I won’t do it again” if they've already seen you'd lie and say it was a one-off when it wasn't.. You can try approaching the prosecutor on the day, but "I wouldn't hold my breath" …..

rather than the thread you had quoted?

In that thread you have quoted, the OP hasn't yet heard back from Tfl as to if they are being prosecuted or given an administrative settlement, so it isn't correct to say "the only reason the user received a warning was because of her medical condition", as they haven't yet heard.

Solicitor

My responses don’t prevent others replying : it isn’t “either /or”, so I don’t need to shut up, provided my posts meet site rules (see above about reporting them to the site team) The good news is people can make up their own mind if it looks like you are trolling, based on YOUR posts / behaviour. I can accept that me pointing out why you are just out to waste their time, then allows them to choose to reply or not ; yup, agreed. If you are trolling as part of a team : can we expect some recently joined members with a low post count to rush in to stir things up?

What makes my reply bigoted? I don’t know your gender, religion, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation or anything else about you to make me / my reply bigoted. If you gave a ‘protected characteristic’ now : why should anyone believe it given your posting history and lies? So, my conclusion is you are trolling and / or deluded. if you believe I’m bigoted / my reply shows bigotry : report my post for it and let the site team decide. I’ve commented on the facts. People can look at the start date of this thread, your posts during it, and your false claims about the solicitor. So, they’ll see you are either a) trolling, and/or b) couldn’t lie straight in bed. The thing is, you forget what lies you have told, so you aren’t that good a liar. I’m keen to help people, but wind up merchants / people who just lie : they waste the time of those who otherwise might help people who really need it. If you are threatening to ‘stomp off’ and go troll elsewhere: fill ya boots.

Sorry, but: a) this appears to have been dragging on for some 13 years (is that a record for a CAG thread??) b) OP (who I've previously wondered if they are a 'wind-up' merchant), decided (according to what they said in this thread) to "joke" about seeing a solicitor, and that thst solicitor entered into a physical / borderline sexual relationship with them. Hilarous joke, if they have £50k at stake, ..... (posts around no. 130, if people want to review). So, even if it isn't a wind-up: i) OP should have involved a solicitor, years ago, and if they haven't: are up a creek ii) I'm not sure anything OP says can be trusted, so on that basis, how can anyone offer advice?. Let OP go to a solicitor. If someone wants to waste their time trying to offer advice: at least you've been warned, and its your decision if you want to waste your time.

Revolut don’t offer Naira at present.

The third party like Wise isn’t the issue, I suspect, but the source not being your own account.

Therein lies your problem as to Barclays eyes : it looks like money laundering and / or receipt of proceeds of crime. To prevent the same happening for your newer TSB account : transfer money in sourced from your own Naira account, rather than a third-party account. You may still be asked about the source of the funds, but when you explain it is your own money it’ll look a lot less suspicious to the bank.

What do you want to achieve? have you had an apology? What do you think will make her less likely to repeat her mistake?

You can SAR them again, to check. If: a) they dealt with it as a complaint, b) stated that their response was a final response, c) noted that you could escalate it to FOS (and had 6 months in which to do so), and d) Didn’t say “we will waive our right to have to grant permission after 6 months” Them : you can still take it to FOS but FOS would have to obtain their permission to review it outside of the 6 months (and that seems unlikely) https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/businesses/resolving-complaint/before-get-involved#:~:text=These time limits are%3A,they had cause to complain)