Subject Access Request

Convicted Driver Insurance

Milton

Member
I recently applied for a Subject Access Request to the PNC via ACRO.
Today I received a reply stating that the PNC holds no infornation against my name at any address I have lived in the
past.
I assumed that meant that my drink driving record from over 30 years ago had been deleted.
Therefore if I applied for employment that was exempt from the ROA I wouldn't have to disclose my old
conviction.
However, I have recently discovered that's not the case.
There is another crime data base called the PND or Police National Database which still retains
all details of convictions dating back to 1963.
Apparently conviction data held on the PND will still be disclosed on an enhanced DBS check despite being deleted
from the PNC.
I therefore have no idea if an old conviction has to be declared when applying for a job that's exempt from the ROA.
Should old convictions still need to be declared with such a job application, then I conclude that the Subject Access Request
to the PNC isn't worth the paper it's written on.
Surely you either have a criminal record or you haven't.
The Police seem to want it both ways.
 
If you need an enhanced check the police will disclose any convictions they consider relevant no matter how old they are. In practice I find they always disclose DD.

When you apply for a job that requires an enhanced check the application form will almost certainly say that the role is exempt from the ROA Act and you will need to disclose all convictions, even if they are spent. If there is a mismatch between what you declare and what the enhanced check says it will probably lead to awkward questions.

Unfortunately you can't apply for an enhanced check yourself, and due to all the recent abuse scandals they are likely to search much more thoroughly for an enhanced check versus a GDPR request. It is ultimately up to you but if the offence isn't relevant and a long time ago I would tend to disclose as the safest option. Best to explain before the DBS check than after.
 
The following was taken from the Unlock website which seems to contradict your kind advice.

"Effectively, if a conviction is not on the PNC, it doesn't exist. If there was a mistake in recording it, such as the wrong name, then it shouldn't be linked to you if/when a check is done. The only problem you would have is if you disclose a conviction that isn't on your record, as that would at least cause confusion and would probably trigger all sorts of discrimination. If your subject access request doesn't show it, then the best thing to do is not to disclose it."
 
Is that for a standard or enhanced check?

Standard checks PNC.

Enhanced checks PNC and PLX.

But in the end it is up to every applicant what they disclose. Having seen many enhanced checks they seem to throw up a lot of things - for instance last year one applicant had a alleged DD that was dropped from 2005 on their check. But there will always be a luck of the draw element.
 
More advice taken from the Unlock website:

"Enhanced DBS checks are based on what is on the PNC, so if it isn't on the PNC against your name, it won't be on an enhanced DBS check against your name."

Also the PND and PLX don't record convictions, that's what the PNC is for.
Therefore a person with only one conviction that isn't on the PNC won't have any details held on the PND or PLX
relating to that conviction.

I recently applied to the local Police force who prosecuted me for DD over 31 years ago and the report came back
clear stating "No trace". That's exactly what I expected.

I therefore consider myself to have no criminal record at all.
 
Personally I think you are cherry picking information. The unlock website goes into considerable detail about PLX records and the fact they can disclose more than simply the conviction.

As I have said as part of recruitment I have seen plenty of enhanced checks and what they can throw up.

The fact you are ignoring is that these checks are designed to pick up child sex offenders and violent criminals. There is huge pressure on DBS to join the dots. If you think, as part of that, they will miss a DD conviction within the last twenty years (when most police intelligence went electronic) then I think you are making a leap of faith.

However it is not an exact science and quite clearly even a serious conviction could fall between the cracks. I wouldn't personally like to rely upon it
 
Hi TipsyNurse,
Thank you for your reply.
I'm certainly not cherry picking information.
My one and only involvement with the Police was my conviction back in 1987 for drink driving.
My local Police enquiry for information on the PLX has come back clear.
My Subject Access Request to the PNC has come back clear.
Despite this you seem to imply that an enhanced check will disclose things that aren't on the PLX or
the PNC.
How can an enhanced check disclose things that aren't recorded on the PNC or PLX Police records?
 
No, I said that an enhanced check will disclose things that are on the PLX but not on the PNC.

If there is no information on the PNC or the PLX then an enhanced check will come back clear.

I would imagine most people asking this question are talking about more recent convictions. If you have a conviction within the last twenty years you should not only check the PNC but also GDPR the local police force to obtain the PLX details if you are considering not disclosing a conviction.

FWIW I think we are arguing the same point. Personally I feel it is ridiculous that police forces disclose minor convictions like DD well beyond the five year ROA limit. However, the system currently is that police forces routinely disclose irrelevant convictions regardless of whether it is proportionate, and those applying for roles where an enhanced check need to be aware of that point. I have even seen applications to get keys for a church refused because of a 13 year old DD conviction.
 
Hi Tipsynurse,
Thanks for your informative and interesting reply.
I have never thought that DD was a minor conviction because it's a criminal conviction.
In my mind you are either a criminal or you're not.
Interesting regarding the church keys being refused due to a 13 year old DD conviction.
That does seem rather severe in my opinion.

I sometimes wonder if my old DD conviction was ever on the PNC, and here's why.
When my DD conviction was around 11 years old I applied for a job with the MOD as a project
manager.
I passed the interview and then had to apply for security clearance.
On the forms I declared my DD conviction. However, despite this I was offered the job and security
cleared up to "secret".
The job involved management of huge budgets and writing long technical specifications for multi-million
pound defence contracts.
During my employment with the MOD I heard through the grape vine that a DD conviction wasn't
considered to be evidence of dishonesty, so maybe that's why I passed the security clearance.
Also my job involved a high level of trust regarding national defence security and somewhat greater
than getting keys for a church.
 
By minor I mean that it is not relevant to a lot of employers in a way that say, theft by deception or at the extreme end a child sex offence would be.

As an example, I used to work with someone who in the past when addicted to cocaine had used his position in a bank to steal someones life savings.

Now, he had moved on and was very capable, but was consistently refused any promotion because of the nature of the offence whereas if it had been DD likely there would have been no problem.

That is the danger of not declaring - is anyone going to care about an 11yo DD conviction? Probably not. Will they care if you don't declare it but it comes up? Maybe if they think it was intended to deceive.

Out of interest did they not give you the result of your check? At least in nursing you both get given the results of the check.
 
I have never been given the results of any security check despite passing three of them for jobs
which were exempt from the ROA.
That's another reason why I have no idea if my conviction had ever been on the PNC or deleted some years later.
I also feel that when the Police delete a conviction from the PNC, they should inform you to prevent you from
declaring a conviction that's been deleted.
My recent problems with house buildings insurance proves my point.
 
Enter code DRINKDRIVING10 during checkout for 10% off
Top