Help with SV application

[Miroh]

Im in the process of completing my security vetting application, and I'm not sure whether to include a incident. When I was around 14 or 15(don't remember exact age it happened 10 years ago), I got a spot fine for having a child ticket, instead of an adult ticket on a c2c train. When I went to exit the station the barrier doors didn't open and I got issued with a fine. I payed the fine within the day.

The question on the SC application is :

Have you ever been convicted or found guilty by a court (including juvenile courts) of ANY offences in ANY country, excluding parking and speeding convictions but including all other motoring offences even where a spot fine has been administered by the police?

Do I mention it? I don't remember whether it was a police officer or a rail inspection officer who issued the fine, or if applies to the question anyway.

 

[mikeg]

It sounds like you were given a penalty fare, which is not a spot fine but a fare charged at a higher than normal price, so no you would not need to declare it.

 

[island]

It sounds like a penalty fare, which is not issued by police or a court and would not need to be mentioned.

(As an aside, child fares are valid for ages 15 and below so it’s unclear why you would have been charged a Penalty Fare in the circumstances above, but that’s probably water under the bridge now.)

 

[furlong]

Well, in terms of the underlying reasons for the vetting process, do your friends and colleagues know this information and is it something you might want to keep secret from them or is it never going to be of any consequence to you whether or not they know? In other words, if someone found this out, might they be able to blackmail you by threatening to tell someone you knew?

 

[some bloke]

Miroh, does the next question ask about a fixed penalty notice?

If so, does it seem to be limited to notices given by the police, or could it mean from a train company?

Does the form say "you must declare any matter which may be relevant" at the start of a Criminal Conviction and Related Matters section?

If you can think of anything like the type of concern which @furlong mentions (about this or anything else) then any question about "conduct liable to lead to susceptibility" might be relevant, perhaps in a section 27.

These forms are from last year:

https://assets.publishing.service.g...ata/file/732844/20180515-Form_NSV001_v1.1.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.g...ata/file/732849/20180515-Form_NSV002_v1.1.pdf

 

[Elwyn]

Having been involved in security clearances a bit, I can tell you that one of the things that is being assessed is whether you are open and truthful. As an employee are you trustworthy? Folk who did something minor 10 years ago and admit it, are more likely to be approved than those who conceal it. Whether it’s spent, trivial or wasn’t technically a conviction etc is not always necessarily the complete issue. Sometimes better to be open about something they don’t need to know than to conceal something they do.

 

[some bloke]

Having been involved in security clearances a bit, I can tell you that one of the things that is being assessed is whether you are open and truthful. As an employee are you trustworthy? Folk who did something minor 10 years ago and admit it, are more likely to be approved than those who conceal it. Whether it’s spent, trivial or wasn’t technically a conviction etc is not always necessarily the complete issue. Sometimes better to be open about something they don’t need to know than to conceal something they do.

Also, the people making the decisions will be fully aware that many people have done illegal things in the past!

And if you're in doubt as to whether to say something, you might find that your own peace of mind is better in the longer term if you are up front.

 

[Elwyn]

Also, the people making the decisions will be fully aware that many people have done illegal things in the past!

And if you're in doubt as to whether to say something, you might find that your own peace of mind is better in the longer term if you are up front.

Quite so.

 

[Mathew S]

Having been involved in security clearances a bit, I can tell you that one of the things that is being assessed is whether you are open and truthful. As an employee are you trustworthy? Folk who did something minor 10 years ago and admit it, are more likely to be approved than those who conceal it. Whether it’s spent, trivial or wasn’t technically a conviction etc is not always necessarily the complete issue. Sometimes better to be open about something they don’t need to know than to conceal something they do.

This is absolutely the case. The biggest red flag to a vetting officer is any hint of dishonesty. Chances are they aren't going to care too much about a single incident of fare evasion, but they would care very much indeed if they found out you had sought to hide it. I mean, what else might you be hiding....

 

[Miroh]

Miroh, does the next question ask about a fixed penalty notice?

If so, does it seem to be limited to notices given by the police, or could it mean from a train company?

Does the form say "you must declare any matter which may be relevant" at the start of a Criminal Conviction and Related Matters section?

If you can think of anything like the type of concern which @furlong mentions (about this or anything else) then any question about "conduct liable to lead to susceptibility" might be relevant, perhaps in a section 27.

These forms are from last year:

https://assets.publishing.service.g...ata/file/732844/20180515-Form_NSV001_v1.1.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.g...ata/file/732849/20180515-Form_NSV002_v1.1.pdf

The next question is

Have you ever been on probation, or received any type of police caution, or been absolutely/conditionally discharged, or had a fixed penalty notice or penalty notice for disorder issued to you, or accepted a fiscal fine from the Procurator Fiscal in Scotland, or been bound over after being charged with any offence, or there are one or more actions pending against you?

and this is what it says at the very start:

Criminal Convictions & Related Matters

In line with HM Government's policy on vetting, you must declare any matter which may be relevant.

This includes any criminal convictions which you may have, including those which are 'spent'.

In line with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975, the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Exclusions and Exceptions)(Scotland) Order 2003 and the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Exceptions) Order (Northern Ireland) 1979, spent convictions may also be taken into account where protecting public safety or public order is involved.

 

[Miroh]

And thanks for everyones advice. Its not something I'm worried about admitting, its something extremely minor. I'm just trying to determine weather it is relevant to the question. I do agree you have to be 100% honest and disclose anything you are not sure about.

 

[30907]

And thanks for everyones advice. Its not something I'm worried about admitting, its something extremely minor. I'm just trying to determine weather it is relevant to the question. I do agree you have to be 100% honest and disclose anything you are not sure about.

The question is clearly asking about police matters, but could be construed as asking about motoring FPNs. They could have asked about Penalty Fares (a well established term) but didn't.
That said, you aren't likely to be marked down for mentioning the PF!

 

[Chumba]

If you’re in doubt then declare it, and say you weren’t sure if you had to but being open and honest you have done so. Having been involved in vetting interviews in the past, the vetting officer won’t worry about the matter unless it comes out and you haven’t declared it. That shows a perpensaty to conceal,or hide information. They won’t look kindly on that and it will effect any decision to grant or not grant the clearance. Believe me people admit to much much worse matters when vetted and as long as it’s declared isn’t an issue.