0

I was fired for gross misconduct. I have stolen 10 pounds from a client in a care home.

I have been offered a job by my old employer (the employer I was with before the current job) ; they said they don't need references or anything as I have worked there before but will run a DBS check.

Will it come up that I was fired for gross misconduct? Police were not involved.

13
  • 1
    DBS is (mostly) a criminal record check, what exactly was that gross misconduct that you suspect it would show up? – Tymoteusz Paul Sep 21 '20 at 16:08
  • Alleged stealing of money from a client in home care. But police where not involved. The employer told me it would be on my dbs. However I didnt think it would be due to not being a criminal offence – user121491 Sep 21 '20 at 16:09
  • Ay wey. I have to ask, did you do what they accuse you or not? No judgement here, but answer will greatly depend on it, and it is fixable, but not if we don't know the full truth (advice for fake accusation will likely backfire if it's true). – Tymoteusz Paul Sep 21 '20 at 16:10
  • 2
    I've updated your question with those details, as this is pretty importnt. – Tymoteusz Paul Sep 21 '20 at 16:21
  • 6
    I observe that, if your user name on here is your real name, then irrespective of whether or not the information shows up on a DBS check, it will show up on a Google search for you, just as soon as Google crawls this public web page on which you've posted the information. And even if it's not your real name, it does appear to be the real name of at least one other person... – Daniel Hatton Sep 21 '20 at 17:05
5

Will it come up that I was fired for gross misconduct?

DBS doesn't carry information about whether people were fired or not, what it carries about are criminal records of an individual, and few more things with the extended checks. As police was not involved (at least directly with you yet) there would likely be nothing to show on your DBS check. Except that you are in care of vulnerable people, which means you are likely staring down at Enhanced DBS check with barred list.

Problem is that this includes not just criminal records, but also something called "relevant police infomation" which can be a lot of things that relate to you and, what's likely what will sink you is the: barred lists check, and this is likely where what has happened may show up, as you can read:

How does the DBS decide whether to add someone to the barred lists?

As part of its decision-making process the DBS usually considers a range of information from the police, as well as referrals from employers, regulatory bodies and other agencies.

The DBS considers offences (convictions or cautions), evidence of inappropriate behaviour and evidence of behaviour likely to harm a child or vulnerable adult.

Before the DBS comes to a barring decision, the individual in question is given the information the decision is based on and the opportunity to explain their case.

This is likely what your former employee refers to, and this is likely what will sink your new job application. Even if you manage to get employed before those records get updated and manage to sneak through the cracks, this is not a happy ending, as applying for a job which you know you may be barred from is breaking the law, and eventually this will catch up with you as those check can and usually are redone at times.

So what should I do?

First verify what's on your record, you can do SAR to the DBS to find out if you are on the barred list, you may also do one with the police for good measure. And then probably start looking for a new job, just in case this one doesn't pan out.

If there is a record with DBS on you, you could try appealing it but as you did what you did, and wound up not getting into trouble with the police, I would personally just let it be, but whether it's worth taking the gamble and risking for the theft to be acted upon is for you to decide.

2
  • 1
    Generally speaking, the information given out by police must be credible and have at least been the subject of an investigation - not least because the subject may challenge any adverse information, and the police will be put on the back foot to justify themselves. Mere tittle-tattle will not be included, and whilst we would all be unsettled to think any money would be stolen by those in positions of trust, the attitude of policymakers here would likely be that it is for the employer to manage this risk by taking up references... (1/2) – Steve Sep 22 '20 at 9:32
  • 1
    ...and by hiring staff at salaries and on terms appropriate to the need for trust and responsibility. The purpose of the criminal records regime is primarily to protect the vulnerable from those who are liable to harm them personally through malice or other really serious criminal mentalities, not to protect employers from what might be regarded as routine misconduct or irresponsibility, or to remove the need for supervision or what would be regarded as robust systems in a normal workplace (such as not having cash on show to strangers). (2/2) – Steve Sep 22 '20 at 9:43

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .