109 offences on one nominee pass...PLEASE HELP!

[fowler9]

I would be really ticked off to find out that someone in the police involved in me being convicted of something was a serial fraudster. 109 times isn't bunking on the train occasionally.

 

[Tara]

T

And might they tell the court that their records don't go back any further, so they can't exclude the possibility this went on for longer, perhaps even substantially longer?

This is something I thought of. i really hope not! I'm very worried about this. I feel like this is going to ruin my life.

 

[furlong]

As you used it without her knowledge, would that also constitute theft?

Very unlikely in the circumstances described. (Look up the legal definition.)

 

[reb0118]

As an aside I assume you are a serving police officer at present? Unless things have changed recently it is highly unlikely to get direct entry into the detective branch. You normally have to spend a few years on the "beat" first.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is something I thought of. i really hope not! I'm very worried about this. I feel like this is going to ruin my life.

It needn't ruin your life, but it may well require you to make a different choice of career.

 

[Puffing Devil]

As an aside I assume you are a serving police officer at present? Unless things have changed recently it is highly unlikely to get direct entry into the detective branch. You normally have to spend a few years on the "beat" first.

Direct entry is now possible to Detective Roles, with a two year probation period.

It needn't ruin your life, but it may well require you to make a different choice of career.

If you're not open about this during the recruitment process and it does come to court and you're convicted you will most likely have a very short career. This is a serious matter - it would be a disciplinary matter for a serving officer that could end in dismissal.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

As an aside I assume you are a serving police officer at present? Unless things have changed recently it is highly unlikely to get direct entry into the detective branch. You normally have to spend a few years on the "beat" first.

https://policecareers.tal.net/vx/mo...l/1/opp/256-Detective-Constable-Pathway/en-GB

Traditionally, you’d need police experience to become a detective constable. However, we’re now giving people the chance to join directly into the role. It’s a huge change, and we’re the first police service in the country to offer this exciting opportunity.

 

[furnessvale]

As an aside I assume you are a serving police officer at present? Unless things have changed recently it is highly unlikely to get direct entry into the detective branch. You normally have to spend a few years on the "beat" first.

Yes, I mentioned in an earlier post that the new direct entry as a detective is a real kick in the teeth for serving uniformed officers trying to get into CID.

 

[reb0118]

Yes, I mentioned in an earlier post.....

Thanks, I missed that.

 

[Mathew S]

@Tara Speaking as someone who has a criminal conviction and has been through vetting; the most important thing is that you are honest with your vetting officer. As others have said, any attempt to hide this is almost worse than it having happened at all. I can't emphasise this enough: you must be honest. A criminal record doesn't (necessarily) mean you cannot be a police officer, nor does it (necessarily) mean you cannot hold a security clearance. I am testament to the latter of those two points myself. Even the perception of dishonesty during the vetting process, however, is enough to be a permanent bar.

You should prepare yourself, though, for a disappointment. Minor offences, events which took place a long time ago, and convictions where there were extensive mitigating circumstances are one thing. I find it difficult, however, to imagine the Met taking your application forward in this case unless you can present the vetting officer with a compelling explanation for your lacklustre conduct.

You might seek the advice of a solicitor experienced in railway cases to see if they can negotiate a settlement however, with 109 separate allegations, it would amaze me if a settlement were possible.

EDIT (because this occurred after I had posted): Even if you can come to an out of court settlement, there would still be an expectation you would disclose this as part of your vetting. This is because someone could see it as a possible pressure point for extortion/corruption.

 

[Tara]

@Tara Speaking as someone who has a criminal conviction and has been through vetting; the most important thing is that you are honest with your vetting officer. As others have said, any attempt to hide this is almost worse than it having happened at all. I can't emphasise this enough: you must be honest. A criminal record doesn't (necessarily) mean you cannot be a police officer, nor does it (necessarily) mean you cannot hold a security clearance. I am testament to the latter of those two points myself. Even the perception of dishonesty during the vetting process, however, is enough to be a permanent bar.

You should prepare yourself, though, for a disappointment. Minor offences, events which took place a long time ago, and convictions where there were extensive mitigating circumstances are one thing. I find it difficult, however, to imagine the Met taking your application forward in this case unless you can present the vetting officer with a compelling explanation for your lacklustre conduct.

You might seek the advice of a solicitor experienced in railway cases to see if they can negotiate a settlement however, with 109 separate allegations, it would amaze me if a settlement were possible.

EDIT (because this occurred after I had posted): Even if you can come to an out of court settlement, there would still be an expectation you would disclose this as part of your vetting. This is because someone could see it as a possible pressure point for extortion/corruption.

I highly doubt my application will be successful at this point. In terms of an out of court settlement will I have to contact TFL directly?

 

[Mathew S]

I highly doubt my application will be successful at this point. In terms of an out of court settlement will I have to contact TFL directly?

I am not the right person to advise on dealing with TfL; there are others on here who have experience in that area which I do not. But, given what's at stake, if I were you I would engage the services of a good lawyer to deal with them on your behalf. Any local criminal law firm should be able to help, but if you can find one specialising in railway matters (someone on the forum may make a recommendation, otherwise Google is your friend) so much the better.

One thing I would say is that a criminal conviction is not the end of the world; even though it feels like it. Yes, it will restrict your choice of careers. Yes, it may make it harder to get a job. But nothing is impossible. Soon enough, a conviction becomes spent and you get to (mostly) pretend it never happened. Work hard now, with a lawyer, to achieve the best outcome you can; then put all your effort into moving on when it's over.

 

[furlong]

You might seek the advice of a solicitor experienced in railway cases to see if they can negotiate a settlement however, with 109 separate allegations, it would amaze me if a settlement were possible.

It's the nature of this type of offence that there'll often be a large number by the time someone's luck runs out and they get caught. Modern systems make it easier to show some of those previous instances occurred, leading to a higher (more accurate) level of compensation. So regarding reaching a possible settlement, I'd suggest it's not really the number here that matters, rather that it's the first time the person was caught, and not a situation where there was a previous settlement but re-offending.

 

[furlong]

(If - and we don't know this - the truth is the offending went on for much longer, a good solicitor might be able to achieve a settlement without directly conceding that point but allowing TfL to obtain a more accurate amount of compensation beyond that to which they'd be able to prove they were entitled in court.)

 

[the chairman]

Just a couple of points to consider. I've never heard of direct recruitment to CID. Perhaps this has changed? Also, why would an applicant for the Met Police refer to it as the civil service?

 

[najaB]

I've never heard of direct recruitment to CID. Perhaps this has changed?

See post #37.

 

[Surreytraveller]

Just a couple of points to consider. I've never heard of direct recruitment to CID. Perhaps this has changed? Also, why would an applicant for the Met Police refer to it as the civil service?

It was in the news a little while ago, about graduates being recruited ti higher grades. Uts the same in a lot of jobs now. The railway being an example - people making decisions without having worked their way up, with a total lack of experience and knowledge.
I imagine the reference to the Civil Service perhaps shows a lack of understanding of how the public sector works? Perhaps staff in hospitals might refer to themselves as the civil service too?
Or perhaps the OP was trying to keep their position as vague as possible to protect themselves?

 

[boxy321]

From the Met Police Applications Guidance (I've highlighted the important bit): "Under normal circumstances, if an applicant declares any of the following convictions or security-vetting checks reveal them, the application will be rejected.

1. Any offence committed as an adult, (i.e. aged 17 years and over), which involves elements of dishonesty, corruption, serious violence or injury, serious involvement with drugs or abuse of children, substantial financial gain or serious loss to anyone."

It appears it will be out-of-court settlement or bust, sadly. Didn't a solicitor get off by paying a huge bill for fare evasion a year or so ago? The OP absolutely must keep this out of court.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

Didn't a solicitor get off by paying a huge bill for fare evasion a year or so ago?

He did, but he didn't manage to keep it quiet from those who regulate the conduct of solicitors, so he got thrown out of his job anyway. Or was that a fund manager? Perhaps there have been several cases.

 

[boxy321]

He did, but he didn't manage to keep it quiet from those who regulate the conduct of solicitors, so he got thrown out of his job anyway. Or was that a fund manager? Perhaps there have been several cases.

The example I thought of was a 'City Executive' who paid £43,000 back in 2014:

From the Guardian -

The payout was calculated on the basis of single fares. This meant the settlement cost him £20,000 more than if he had bought season tickets. The train company defended the decision not to prosecute.

"[Out-of-court settlement] is something that people have a right to do in this country," said Atterbury Thomas. "The punishment is the big amount of money. Fare dodging is something we take very seriously to protect the proceeds of everybody else's tickets. We are rigorous in making sure we catch the people who dodge the fare."

Seems like it could be possible for the OP to keep this quiet, but it will be very costly.

 

[K12r]

Do not plead guilty until you know exactly what you’re pleading guilty to. One offence could be a slip up 100 plus isn’t. Remember they have to prove the offences.

Also, don’t rely on opinion on any Internet forum as having any more validity that Fred at the chippy.

Get proper qualified professional advice esp as the consequences could be severed to you

I don’t believe that a bylaw offence is recordable , which may make a difference.

 

[westcoaster]

As an aside isn't a nominee pass given to a spouse or partner of a TFL employee. Would TFL accept an out of court settlement on missuse of a staff travel pass.
Has the pass been returned or permanently withdrawn.

 

[Tara]

As an aside isn't a nominee pass given to a spouse or partner of a TFL employee. Would TFL accept an out of court settlement on missuse of a staff travel pass.
Has the pass been returned or permanently withdrawn.

The pass has been re-issued to my mum

 

[Tara]

As an aside isn't a nominee pass given to a spouse or partner of a TFL employee. Would TFL accept an out of court settlement on missuse of a staff travel pass.
Has the pass been returned or permanently withdrawn.

From what I've read and heard, an out of court settlement is almost impossible

 

[najaB]

From what I've read and heard, an out of court settlement is almost impossible

Almost, but not entirely.

 

[Mathew S]

From what I've read and heard, an out of court settlement is almost impossible

You have nothing to lose by trying for one. The worst they can do is say no & prosecute, which will happen anyway.

 

[philthetube]

Be careful where you go with this, for TFL to return your mums pass suggests that they believe that you stole it, as if she knew you were using it they would never have returned it. You don't want to open that can of worms so maybe time to think different career path. Take advice though.