theForum » Colleges, Universities and other education » Disclosure of criminal records and criminal record checks » Disclosing a criminal record » Disclosing convictions to gyms, cinemas, other outdoor activities

Disclosing convictions to gyms, cinemas, other outdoor activities

xDanx — Thu, 29 Dec 2022 13:56:24 GMT

I have been wondering this for a long while now and figured it might be good to discuss it further.

Are you legally required to inform a gym or even other places like cinemas, gigs of your convictions?

My old PPU once stated that anything I do outside I MUST disclose my conviction to the one in charge, I applied to attend this local place some years ago to do some DIY which only allowed 19+ yet I was still forced by my PPU to disclose my conviction. And so he him self could check the place out. I spoke to the owner directly and he seemed pretty relaxed with me being there but I still felt uneasy going, I eventually stopped going all together. I am looking at possibly joining up with a local gym as it would help me massively getting me out more but my PPU keep telling me that I MUST disclose. I have googled around and so far I have found nothing which legally tells me I 1, have to disclose to owner to gym or any other such place. 2, I do not have to inform the PPU I have even joined a gym or my where abouts unless of course.... as per the notification requirements someone under 18 resides where I will be present for a period of 12 hours or more.

Thoughts?

RE: Disclosing convictions to gyms, cinemas, other outdoor activities

JASB — Thu, 29 Dec 2022 13:56:24 GMT

[quote]

[b]Lineofduty - 29 Dec 22 12:10 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]JASB - 10 Oct 22 10:41 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]Mr W - 9 Oct 22 5:21 PM[/b]

I know what you're saying but the "might be appropriate to consider disclosure" is the crux of the problem.

Even if I didn't have my SHPO, my ppu still says the company's "terms and conditions" is an argument for disclosure. My legal rep says this is wrong but it doesn't stop the ppu trying it on. This is where it becomes slightly unrealistic because when she's putting in her phone calls and asks: "Hi, do you allow..." their response is always going to be no and that’s what she’ll relay to me.

So without being deemed a trouble-maker, in the same breath, you have to ask the question: "What are you going to arrest me for?" because if it isn't breach of SHPO, they're going to have to have reasonable grounds to arrest you for something. This is why I've gone to my gigs even if they've said not to, they said I should come off social media and I didn't... and oh look, no arrest... because I've done nothing wrong and no disclosure was made either. The same would go for supermarkets etc they can't arrest you if you've done nothing wrong. It'll always be a case of self-awareness of your situation and picking your fights.

[/quote]

Hi
In essence I agree with your thoughts and believe we should pursue a life that is of a quality to a person.
However it must be recognised that the "system" never really looses, so though they may not arrest you, how do you know that your "record" is not used as a tool against you? As mentioned before when I asked "who checks the data entries are correct?"
As i have mentioned many times I discovered my ppu officer had twice emailed a positive statement to me but in-between those emails had written the complete opposite on my ViSor record which is affecting me now even though they apologized.

I hate to call it a game but once convicted our lives are forced into a game of "strategy" in the hope we may succeed in getting a quality of life.

[/quote]

Hi, interesting to see you'd challenged the data on the ViSor system. Who did you complain to...PPU or the Data Protection Team. The ICO states that there should be a dispute mechanism about the disputed data particularly where it involves data that is "inaccurate, unfair, and inadequate". As I find the PSD biased I'm wondering whether I should deal with the DPT...

After a running battle from the start with a malicious PPU officer, I finally got her replaced and at same time obtained a copy of all her Home Visit reports. Well, i'd like to say i was shocked but i wasn't. The College of Policing states that "all necesary information" is recorded. on home visits. For me I found many statements that were inaccurate, skewed, inadequate for clarity and even fabricated not to mention no positive aspects that I'd told her about that should have been recorded. Oh and of course nothing down about certain unlawful behaviour of hers (the subject of a current complaint/IOPC review) or the genuine reason that I have felt compelled to record her visits on a number of occasions (they really don't like being recorded do they - strange that isn't it..)

[/quote]

Hi
My situation is rather unique; as far as I know may only be a couple of others included in this scenario so I would be interested in yours as it is all down to the "Relevant date" that defines the start date of the SOR initial registration.
I started with Unlock helpline (Debbie is a star") The issue is that many authorities take a different view of interpretation. That is the challenge.
I have emails from the Home Office Sex Offender management team supporting me, then they won't respond to further questions from me and interesting the areas Force Solicitor as well!
The college of Policing confirmed in writing I was correct but after being approached by the areas Force Solicitor, stated they had not understood all the facts so went against me. They refused to tell me what the "unknown facts" were as I have been 100% informative.
The ViSor quote references to the 2003 Act, and then the Pt1 guidance of the Act which does support their thoughts. However both of those documents show references to the Pt2 guidance which provides an explicit scenario that meets my own - female age and sentencing delay - that overrides the elements they state and so supports my case.

I attempted to go via a solicitor who had previously helped on removing certain SOPO conditions but they; in the same manner as ViSOR, refuse to acknowledge the Pt2. I believe because not many are aware of this and probably other reasons as well.
The Courts will not discuss it with me and say to get "legal advice"!

Lineofduty — Thu, 29 Dec 2022 12:10:27 GMT

[quote]

[b]JASB - 10 Oct 22 10:41 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]Mr W - 9 Oct 22 5:21 PM[/b]

I know what you're saying but the "might be appropriate to consider disclosure" is the crux of the problem.

[/quote]

RE: Disclosing convictions to gyms, cinemas, other outdoor activities

JASB — Tue, 11 Oct 2022 10:38:51 GMT

[quote]

[b]Was - 10 Oct 22 2:52 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]JASB - 10 Oct 22 10:41 AM[/b]

I hate to call it a game but once convicted our lives are forced into a game of "strategy" in the hope we may succeed in getting a quality of life.

[/quote]

The main overriding mission of the PPU is to emphasise that you no longer have control of your life. They abuse their powers to enforce this. It's how they are trained. If I'd been on an indefinite SOR, or even a 10 year one, my former civil liberties campaigning self would have been in court challenging them at every turn.

However, I took Confucius' advice:

"The green reed which bends in the wind is stronger than the mighty oak which breaks in a storm."

Every person has to decide what is best for themselves.

[/quote]

Hi
I agree with the quote however I also believe "we can challenge" as long as we have the "evidence"; what ever that might be, behind us.
Speaking on a broad sense, I personally have found that just saying "it's not fair" is not an argument as there are immediately to many comeback answers that gain the sympathetic support of society!

You may of read my previous topics on the start date for the 15 year appeal when on the SOR for life.
With the help of others (not solicitors) after more than 2 years, I even have my PPU confirming my evidence shows the date I can appeal is correct and is 3 years earlier than the date ViSOR etc state.

Remember the system cannot just say something is true and so your guilty, they have to prove the law has been broken. The issue is that they have the financial budget and greater knowledge of the law and how to "interpret" it to their advantage.

[quote]Great laws are created by educated authorities only to be manipulated by lawyers to meet their agenda [/quote]

RE: Disclosing convictions to gyms, cinemas, other outdoor activities

Was — Mon, 10 Oct 2022 14:52:38 GMT

[quote]

[b]JASB - 10 Oct 22 10:41 AM[/b]

I hate to call it a game but once convicted our lives are forced into a game of "strategy" in the hope we may succeed in getting a quality of life.

[/quote]

RE: Disclosing convictions to gyms, cinemas, other outdoor activities

JASB — Mon, 10 Oct 2022 10:41:51 GMT

[quote]

[b]Mr W - 9 Oct 22 5:21 PM[/b]

I know what you're saying but the "might be appropriate to consider disclosure" is the crux of the problem.

[/quote]

RE: Disclosing convictions to gyms, cinemas, other outdoor activities

Mr W — Sun, 09 Oct 2022 17:21:23 GMT

I know what you're saying but the "might be appropriate to consider disclosure" is the crux of the problem.

RE: Disclosing convictions to gyms, cinemas, other outdoor activities

punter99 — Mon, 03 Oct 2022 15:46:41 GMT

[quote]

[b]Mr W - 3 Oct 22 2:03 PM[/b]

After reading the jaw-droppingly depressing 10.11 on page 57 - "When to disclose", with catch-all phrases like: "others may be at risk", "potential victims", "new relationships... may include friends", "employment, training or education," "an event or venue" - how are we expected to think of ways of moving forward while having a massive sticker on our forehead saying 'bad person'

[/quote]

These are instructions on when it might be appropriate to consider disclosure, not a requirement to disclose in every situation. But the way that the risk is assessed is going to be crucial. The interesting thing, is that these suggestions apply, regardless of whether the person has a no contact provision in their SHPO, or not.

Now, if you don't have a no contact with u-18s clause, then it means that the judge who issued the SHPO, has concluded that the risk of a contact offence is so low, that it doesn't justify putting a no contact restriction in the SHPO, so why would the police then think that the risk is high enough to justify disclosure?

It's possible that the police, in their home visits, may have observed something that the judge did not see, in which case they should go back to court and ask the judge to amend the SHPO, to include a no contact provision. But if that is not the case, then where is the justification for disclosure?

In short, if contact is not forbidden by the SHPO, then disclosure should not be necessary, because the risk of a contact offence is not high enough.

But, even in cases where a no contact clause does exist, the risk may still not be high enough to justify disclosure. That would depend on the facts of the original case. In the R v Parsons (2017) case, he was convicted of an image offence only, but was given a no contact restriction, because the police found evidence of him 'browsing or searching for' websites that could have been used for chats with young children. Parsons was never accused of, or convicted, of a contact offence.

So on that basis, the police might consider disclosure to be necessary for him, but again, under what circumstances? The facts of the case suggest that a contact offence would only occur online, if it occurred at all. It wasn't an offence committed in a public place, so why would disclosure be necessary for public places such as gyms or cinemas?

Finally, there is the proportionality test. I've heard plenty of people say they have been told to disclose in some circumstances, but not in others. I've yet to hear of a case, where anyone has been told they must disclose to the supermarket manager, before they can go into a supermarket. But why not? We know that if you go into a supermarket, there are almost certainly going to be kids there somewhere, so if the risk of a contact offence is so high, then logically, you must disclose to the supermarket too. On the other hand, if the police don't consider a supermarket to be too risky, then why would a gym or a cinema be more risky?

RE: Disclosing convictions to gyms, cinemas, other outdoor activities

Mr W — Mon, 03 Oct 2022 14:03:49 GMT

RE: Disclosing convictions to gyms, cinemas, other outdoor activities

Moctodliam — Mon, 03 Oct 2022 14:03:28 GMT

Thank you for the clarity.

RE: Disclosing convictions to gyms, cinemas, other outdoor activities

punter99 — Mon, 03 Oct 2022 11:58:44 GMT

[quote]

[b]Moctodliam - 2 Oct 22 10:02 PM[/b]

Hi all

First time in here.

So, I have a SHPO which does not contain any restriction on contact with under 18s. My offender manager has told me that none of my children’s friends are allowed to visit my house unless I have disclosed to their parents. Even if I am not there when they visit. Are they able to do this? I have a feeling they are not as they can’t alter my SHOO without referring to court?

Any guidance appreciated

Thanks

[/quote]

The short answer is yes, they do have the power to disclose to the parents. They can ask you to do it, but they cannot make you do it, or they can do it themselves.
It does not depend on what the SHPO says, or doesn't say. It all depends if they think there is a risk of harm.

RE: Disclosing convictions to gyms, cinemas, other outdoor activities

punter99 — Mon, 03 Oct 2022 11:49:30 GMT

The most relevant part is para 10.22

10.22 Subject to a risk assessment and where appropriate, offenders should be encouraged make the disclosures themselves in the first instance. This may be done in private or in the presence of the police, probation or social care, depending on the circumstances and the offender’s preference. However disclosures made by an offender in private must be followed up by the lead agency to ensure that accurate information has been disclosed and that the recipient understands the implications of the disclosure. Disclosure should not be unduly delayed to enable the offender to make the disclosure.

10.23 Offenders do not have to be told that a disclosure has taken place... If representations are not sought from the offender,the person receiving the disclosure should be told that the offender does not know that it has been made.

There is NO legal duty on anybody to disclose, but there is a legal obligation, on the authorities, to consider disclosing.

Also see para 10.18, for info about how the disclosure should be made and the work that the police have to do. Also in the College of Police advice on disclosure, it states:

"The responsibility to disclose information about a MAPPA category 1 offender who is managed at level 1 rests with an officer of superintendent rank. While the superintendent may choose to delegate this for day-to-day operational ease, they retain overall responsibility."

RE: Disclosing convictions to gyms, cinemas, other outdoor activities

Moctodliam — Mon, 03 Oct 2022 10:45:52 GMT

Many thanks for your response and the information. I just want to get as much ammunition as I can prior to my next meeting in a couple of days time so I can state my case from an informed position. Thanks

RE: Disclosing convictions to gyms, cinemas, other outdoor activities

Was — Mon, 03 Oct 2022 09:13:23 GMT

[quote]

[b]Moctodliam - 2 Oct 22 10:02 PM[/b]

[/quote]

The MAPPA team pretty much do as they wish. I've never found a "MAPPA Rules for Offenders", so it is very difficult to stop them acting unlawfully as we don't know how they operate* - and as you 're new here unlawful does not mean illegal. It just means acting without the authority of the law.

* Not quite true, I did find a document outlining their role many years ago, but it was so woolly, I couldn't work out what it was other than it's a multiagency team that meets to discuss the offenders they are managing. However, I last actively looked for it 4 years ago, so maybe something has been published since.

Update: found this dated May 2022. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1101319/MAPPA_Guidance_May_22__002_.docx

[quote]The Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA) s.327A places a duty on the RA to consider disclosing information to members of the public about the previous convictions of any child sex offender managed by the RA.[/quote]

Chapters 9 & 10 seem to be the most relevant.

So it has to be a considered disclosure, proportionate and targeted at specific individuals. A blanket disclosure requirement would appear to be unlawful.

In theory they have to be able to justify their actions, but in practical terms there's not much that can be done without a court challenge. Challenge your PPO on this and you go down as "having something to hide.

Moctodliam — Sun, 02 Oct 2022 22:02:36 GMT

RE: Disclosing convictions to gyms, cinemas, other outdoor activities

Was — Thu, 29 Sep 2022 13:13:27 GMT

[quote]

[b]punter99 - 28 Sep 22 12:02 PM[/b]

Hence why disclosure should always be done by the police themselves.

[/quote]

True up to a point. I was told that if I didn't disclose to certain people then they would. Net result was the same, but they avoided doing it themselves.

RE: Disclosing convictions to gyms, cinemas, other outdoor activities

punter99 — Wed, 28 Sep 2022 12:02:15 GMT

There is not likely to be anything in the SHPO about disclosure. The restriction is on contact with under 18s. Disclosure is an optional choice, that the police can choose to make, not a requirement that the SO has to follow. They can ask you to disclose, but they cannot force you to do it, or they can do the disclosure themselves, provided they can identify a clear risk, not just because they feel like it.

I have come across other cases, where an SO was required to tell the police, if he started a new relationship with somebody. That was made part of the licence conditions, on his release from prison. But again, this is a requirement to tell the police, not to disclose to the person they were in the relationship with. Why was it written in that way? I suggest it is because disclosure is the job of the police, not the SO. As I said before, when they disclose they have to issue a warning, to the person being disclosed to, about the consequences of sharing the information. If the SO does the disclosure, then that warning will not be issued, which puts both the SO and the person who is disclosed to, at risk of potential legal action. Hence why disclosure should always be done by the police themselves.

RE: Disclosing convictions to gyms, cinemas, other outdoor activities

Mr W — Tue, 27 Sep 2022 22:46:11 GMT

Yeah it's the reading of the SHPOs which, I think, is the issue when it comes to the original theme for the thread around disclosure. You're lucky not to have one.
The annual notification stuff is more clear cut, so I'd imagine fewer issues arise because people know where they stand and what they're expected to do.

RE: Disclosing convictions to gyms, cinemas, other outdoor activities

Was — Tue, 27 Sep 2022 21:19:22 GMT

[quote]

[b]Mr W - 27 Sep 22 7:44 PM[/b]

But if you’re going on your own to something like paintballing/arcades etc stuff which a ppu might think is ‘stuff that kids do’ then they might (rightly or wrongly) get a bit jumpy.

[/quote]

I think it comes down to an individual's SHPO. I had no restrictions on association apart from the SOR 12-hour requirement. I would not even bother to contact my PPO if what I was doing wasn't covered by the SHPO or SOR. When I went to my sister's I always stuck to the letter of the order. There was no ban on overnight stays, just not longer than 12 hours. I got a job at an Amazon warehouse (or at least I had until the basic check came back!) I didn't think for one moment of telling my PPO I had it. It did not involve internet connected devices. I had no legal obligation to notify them.

However, we know that there are fellow forum posters with restrictive conditions. Unfortunately for them, it's either declare to their PPO or go back to court to challenge the conditions.

RE: Disclosing convictions to gyms, cinemas, other outdoor activities

Mr W — Tue, 27 Sep 2022 19:44:50 GMT

One thing that’s been coming up in conversations I've had with people recently is ‘protective factors’.

So if you’re going with a group of friends, relatives, a girlfriend etc. Then police shouldn’t really stifle what you do (I say shouldn’t, it doesn’t mean to say they won’t.) The theory is that people you go with will act as ‘protective factors’ from the potential of anything which could put you or someone else at risk.

But if you’re going on your own to something like paintballing/arcades etc stuff which a ppu might think is ‘stuff that kids do’ then they might (rightly or wrongly) get a bit jumpy. For me, it’s where that line is drawn, especially over a long period of time of saying ‘no’ because, remember, they’re also assessing your “attitude towards authority”.

RE: Disclosing convictions to gyms, cinemas, other outdoor activities

xDanx — Tue, 27 Sep 2022 11:34:40 GMT

It is great reading all of your perspectives on the matter, although my PPU does tend to ask a lot of questions and encourages me to get out more. I will follow his advice and sign up to a gym, if I am not obligated to share information that is out side of the notification requirements then I will simply not share it. Risk of doing this I would assume is an increase to my level of risk?

What about other hobby related activities? such as for example : go karting, paint balling, arcades.
My first PPU once told me that in order for me to do things such as paint balling. disclosure to the event handlers must be made and checked to ensure they are equipped to "manage" me attending. He then proceeded to state that he was "not happy with the idea of me crawling around bushes where under 18s may be present" and so basically told me I am not able to attend. Would this not still be considered a lawful activity where contact with under 18's is unavoidable? Granted, by not attending contact will be avoided but why should I have to miss out on something that "gets me out" just because of the potential under 18s will also be attending?

Do I have to avoid arcades, go karts, fairs, just because under 18's are more likely to be there?

RE: Disclosing convictions to gyms, cinemas, other outdoor activities

Richie — Mon, 26 Sep 2022 22:43:32 GMT

[quote]

[b]xDanx - 17 Sep 22 10:50 PM[/b]

[/quote]

My take on this is that I don't disclose my conviction to any venue, gym, cinema that I use. I have never spoken about this with my PPU nor has she ever asked me (apart from in general terms) what I do in my spare time. I certainly don't give her a running commentary on what I am doing or what I have done.

The sex offender registration does not require you to disclose your conviction to venues etc, the rehabilitation of offenders act does not require you to disclose your conviction to venues etc. Yes if you have a SHPO or your conviction is not spent you must declare your conviction to employers and insurers when asked.

If you have a SHPO which prevents you from going to certain venues or contact with under 16's then this is the only thing that can stop you going or having to disclose.

As for the PPU they are supposed to do a risk assessment before they disclose your conviction to anyone. If you have an officer that is informing loads of people of your conviction I argue this is unfair and is grounds for a complaint as it puts you at risk of being exposed.

I also urge not to over share with your PPU. Whilst they can question you about your activity I wouldn't tell them anything if they don't ask.

I am lucky that my PPU pretty much leaves me alone and when I see her she does ask me what I do in my spare time and I am honest with her. At no point has she ever said I should disclose my conviction nor does she say I can't attend cinema, theatre, football matches etc.

RE: Disclosing convictions to gyms, cinemas, other outdoor activities

Mr W — Fri, 23 Sep 2022 15:42:35 GMT

Capricious - a great and accurate word and one I’ll have to remember. I think your mentioning of unlawful vs illegal is also the crux of the matter, one which leaves us with little power to do anything about.

The fact that I’ve been threatened with arrest, threatened with disclosure etc and the fact it’s not happened once brings me back to gaslighting because the amount of hours I’ve spent mulling all of these things over - while also being really objective of my own thinking - is time I will never get back. But they obviously know all of this and if challenged will always fall back on that impenetrable ‘safeguarding of children’ get out of jail free card. But when, in terms of 16+ gym, no children are even involved, it blows my mind.

RE: Disclosing convictions to gyms, cinemas, other outdoor activities

Was — Thu, 22 Sep 2022 20:58:05 GMT

[quote]

[b]Mr W - 22 Sep 22 5:48 PM[/b]

I personally think that this type of tactic falls under ‘gas lighting’ and is a very manipulative tactic and if there’s a complaint to be made, I will, I’m currently talking to my legal rep about this too.

[/quote]

The term is "acting under colour of law". I think the PPU "operations manual" is to assert control as early as possible. They often use unlawful means to do this. Unlawful just means that they don't have the legal right to do something, not that it is illegal. The whole informing Facebook thing, for example. Unless your SHPO explicitly speaks about social media they have no legal right to do this. They do it anyway. My PPO even told me that if I reregistered there was nothing that they could do about it. As it happened, I was going to leave Facebook in any case so didn't pursue it.

It's the capricious interpretation of the orders that really got to me, with no basis in the wording that a reasonable observer or judge would agree with. The language interpreting a court order has to have its ordinary meaning. A tortured interpretation of words is not legal.

Unfortunately, the remedy is to call their bluff, have them arrest you, and then appear in front of a judge and show that they have abused their powers and the order of the court. The PPO could get into serious trouble for exceeding their lawful powers, but they rely on it being a risk that I suspect few will take.

RE: Disclosing convictions to gyms, cinemas, other outdoor activities

Mr W — Thu, 22 Sep 2022 17:48:59 GMT

You’ve stumbled upon my favourite subject…! Stick in the usual caveats about police forces being different (Saying that, I would like to hear if anyone has joined a gym without any of the utter farce I’m about to regale you with from police). The long battle I’ve had with my force over a gym has been ridiculous. My order states females under 16 (even though I don’t think it’s Smith compliant but I am getting it looked at soon). Anyway, even though I found two gyms that were over 16, my ppu still found excuses to not ‘let me’ join. One of their excuses was ‘terms and conditions’ (which was a lie as far as I was concerned because I went through the whole membership T&Cs and on their websites and couldn’t find anything). To be fair, as my legal rep told me, you can break a company’s terms and conditions, it’s not a police matter (Insert wider social media/online memberships etc argument here). Not even for people in our situation, they do not have the power to control our involvement with T&Cs. This was my argument from the very beginning but they insisted on pulling rank. They even threatened with arrest, I didn't ask what they would arrest me for but they never have. What I think they’re worried about is if it all hits the fan with someone they’re ‘monitoring’, they look bad. Which, again, is certainly not our concern but they’re certainly making it our problem.

A new gym opened, not walkable like the others, but only about a five minute drive. I thought I’d finally found a workable solution, over 16s, nothing in T&Cs, hurrah!… but this time they decided they wanted me to disclose. *They say* the ‘course of daily life’ thing doesn’t apply to private companies, memberships etc. Whether you buy that, it’s up to you. I don’t. So anyway, they wanted me to disclose and offered to come with me to do so. I think they wanted me to be too afraid to do that and suggested that so I’d shut up and go away. So I called their bluff, I agreed to do it with them. Then ppu went awol, tried chasing, and she was always ‘busy’. More months passed (this whole thing went on for two years!). Then, as if by magic, that ppu disappears and I get a new one. New ppu then said the gym has changed its mind and told me not to join. So, again, if I had joined anyway, the gym wouldn’t know any different and there’s nothing police can do. Then the pandemic hit, so everything closed. I cannot describe the long drawn-out frustration of all of this. And all the work I put into finding gyms, going through their T&Cs and everything, especially when I knew it wasn't necessary, it was pretty soul destroying to be honest.

They also tried the ‘terms and conditions' line when I was going to gigs, again, they told me not to go. But there is actually nothing they can do here. I went to a stadium gig in 2019 and one again earlier this year, my ppu knows and has done nothing. Oddly, on my recent visit she asked if I’d had a good time because she saw photos on my phone. So I find the whole thing bizarre. I personally think that this type of tactic falls under ‘gas lighting’ and is a very manipulative tactic and if there’s a complaint to be made, I will, I’m currently talking to my legal rep about this too.
A very cynical me says they just want to bide their time and keep us boxed up until you’re off their books but unaccountably making our life a misery in the meantime.