Complaint about the Criminal Records Bureau
Jump to
The Criminal Records Bureau provided the complainant’s employer with an inaccurate disclosure which wrongly attributed criminal convictions to him
Background to the complaint
Mr L required a disclosure (a criminal records check) in order to take up employment in the security industry. He applied to the Criminal Records Bureau (the Bureau) for a disclosure in May 2006 through his employer. The Bureau checked Mr L’s details against the police national computer, and identified an individual with the same name and place of birth, and whose date of birth differed from Mr L’s only by one year. They therefore issued a disclosure for Mr L – which was sent to his employer – showing that individual’s convictions.
Solicitors acting for Mr L promptly wrote to the Bureau, saying that Mr L was clearly not the individual whose details were recorded on the police national computer, and that Mr L denied any involvement in the convictions shown on the disclosure. They asked for a fresh disclosure. The Bureau asked Mr L to complete a dispute resolution form, and to return it along with photographs of himself, which he did. In late June 2006 they sent Mr L’s completed form and a photograph to the police, and asked them to investigate Mr L’s claim that he was not the individual whose details were on the police national computer.
In August 2006 Mr L telephoned the Bureau. He said that, having arranged with the police to have his fingerprints taken for comparison with the police national computer, he had duly attended his local police station only to find that they were unaware of such arrangements. The Bureau asked the police to arrange a new appointment, which they did. A comparison of Mr L’s fingerprints with those held by the police subsequently established that he was not the individual whose details were held on the police national computer. Having received that information from the police in September, the Bureau sent Mr L’s employer a new disclosure on 29 September.
In October 2006 the solicitors wrote to the Bureau seeking compensation for the distress that they said the issue of an incorrect disclosure had caused to Mr L. The Bureau replied saying that the details shown on the police national computer had sufficiently closely matched Mr L’s own details, so that it had been reasonable to link him to that record. Furthermore, the other individual lived close to Mr L. The Bureau concluded that they had not acted maladministratively in issuing the disclosure as they did, and so there was no basis on which they might be expected to compensate Mr L.
What we investigated
Mr L complained to the Ombudsman in January 2007 that the Bureau’s actions had led to inconvenience and distress. We investigated whether the Bureau had mishandled his application for a disclosure.
What our investigation found
The enquiries we made of the Bureau, following receipt of Mr L’s complaint, prompted them to reconsider their handling of his case. In their subsequent response, the Bureau said that it had been apparent from the initial police national computer search that the fingerprints of the individual whose convictions had been linked to Mr L were held by the police. They said they should, therefore, have arranged to have those fingerprints compared to Mr L’s fingerprints before issuing a disclosure. The Bureau said that if they had done so, Mr L’s employer would have been told from the outset that Mr L had no criminal convictions.
We upheld Mr L’s complaint and concluded our investigation in May 2007.
Outcome
As a result of our investigation the Bureau apologised to Mr L for the inconvenience that their oversight had caused him and paid him compensation of £550.
Principles for Remedy
The Principles for Remedy were not referred to in our report but this case summary serves to illustrate the following Principles:
- ‘Acting fairly and proportionately’ (offering a remedy that is fair and proportionate).
- ‘Putting things right’ (paying compensation where it is not possible to return a complainant to the position he or she would have been in but for maladministration).
