Wayne C
New Member
Disqualified in 2003 ( DR10 - spent in 2008 endorsed until 2014 )
I am planning to apply for a delivery driving job for a well known supermarket and the job is not exempt from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.
Its how they worded one of the questions on the application form that's stumped me,...[highlight] have you ever been convicted of a drink related driving offence ?[/highlight] How am i supposed to answer that ? If I tick yes then then I suspect my application will be thrown straight in the bin.
If I tick no, and get an interview they would then want to see my counter part and they ask why I lied about my DR10 and find an excuse as to not offering me employment.
How can I assume they mean spent convictions when they used the word
"ever" in the question.
(in the case, R v DVLA & Another, ex parte Pearson [2002])
The High Court decision indicates that it is an unlawful breach of statutory duty for firms to rely on endorsements relating to spent convictions in order to disadvantage a driver.
So how would I stand on this and and in my case wouldn't the prospective employer be in breach of their statutory duty ? or have I misunderstood ?
Any advice you could offer me is much appreciated.
I am planning to apply for a delivery driving job for a well known supermarket and the job is not exempt from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.
Its how they worded one of the questions on the application form that's stumped me,...[highlight] have you ever been convicted of a drink related driving offence ?[/highlight] How am i supposed to answer that ? If I tick yes then then I suspect my application will be thrown straight in the bin.
If I tick no, and get an interview they would then want to see my counter part and they ask why I lied about my DR10 and find an excuse as to not offering me employment.
How can I assume they mean spent convictions when they used the word
"ever" in the question.
(in the case, R v DVLA & Another, ex parte Pearson [2002])
The High Court decision indicates that it is an unlawful breach of statutory duty for firms to rely on endorsements relating to spent convictions in order to disadvantage a driver.
So how would I stand on this and and in my case wouldn't the prospective employer be in breach of their statutory duty ? or have I misunderstood ?
Any advice you could offer me is much appreciated.
