theForum

Employers’ access to ‘subject access’ records will become a criminal offence from December 2014


https://forum.unlock.org.uk/Topic8252.aspx

By Christopher Stacey - 18 Jun 08 1:26 PM

We've learnt today that the MoJ are finally bringing in section 56 of the DPA.

For more information about this, see the update on our Hub @ hub.unlock.org.uk/subject-access-request/

We're keen to hear peoples' experiences about whether you've been asked to provide a copy of your 'police record' when applying for a job, making a claim for insurance, or applying for some form of housing or education.

Chris
By The Stig - 11 Mar 11 6:26 PM

Good news but no good to me has my rehabilitation don't end till 2019 even though it's spent in March 2015. Oh forgot about that ancillary order I have.


We all accept our crimes but should we be punished more for it?

By Victor H - 15 Dec 13 7:37 PM

They should make it a criminal offense to both employer and dbs staff if a dbs check is run on a job role that does not require a back ground check that would solve the issue quickly.
By AJW83 - 19 May 14 2:03 PM

Whilst these are all good steps Chris it just seems another thing where by its on the potential employee to deny this information, anyone "With nothing to hide" will probably happily request the info to be provided it should be made that this info is only provided on enhanced checks and when the person is applying to emigrate. The option of randomly requesting this info should no longer be an option unless it is under freedom of information act.

Agree with Damag3d harder penalties for employers applying for illegal checks it should stopped at DBS not by the potential employee it really cant be that hard to determine if a company will come into contact with vulnerable groups.

This is what I would like to see over the next couple of years

Stricter filtering by the DBS to me companies should need to provide evidence that the role will deal with vulnerable groups along with the application
Ancillary orders no longer stopping a sentence being spent seems ridiculous a person can get not jail time but a judge can give him a 10 year order he takes longer to be spent than someone who has spent 48 months in a cell.