Criminal Records Bureau's service was not adequate

What happened

The Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) – now the Disclosure and Barring Service – took 36 weeks to return Mr M's record check because of many errors. Mr M applied for the record check so that his wife could begin home childminding.

Specifically, the CRB failed to identify Mr M's record with an exact match on the Police National Computer, causing delay as it then asked him to take a fingerprint test and complete a true likeness check. It also handled Mr M's redress claim poorly by delaying its investigation by eight weeks and not telling him about progress. And it wrongly implied in a letter that people matched to records on the Police National Computer had criminal records, when, in Mr M's case, his entry was purely for information.

Although he was largely satisfied with the findings and recommendations of the CRB's Independent Complaints Monitor (ICM), Mr M complained that his wife had been insufficiently compensated for lost earnings by the CRB. He sought larger payments for inconvenience and distress and time spent pursuing the complaint.

What we found

The lost earnings payment of around £1,500 recommended by the ICM was reasonable, because we felt that it had reasonably based the sum on minding one child part-time – as this was what Mrs M had provided evidence of – rather than more children, as Mr M had said would have been possible had the CRB not taken an excessive time to complete its checks.

The ICM's decision that the redress payment it recommended should encompass inconvenience, distress and time spent was reasonable. However, we found that the CRB's handling of Mr M's check was particularly unacceptable because it involved several periods of significant delay resulting from its unnecessary and incorrect actions, and Mr M had to persistently contact it for progress on his check.

Putting it right

We considered that while the lost earnings payment recommended by the ICM was reasonable, the payment of £500 for worry, distress and time spent did not fully reflect the volume and effect of the CRB's poor handling. Therefore, we recommended that the CRB, in addition to the lost earnings payment, make a payment to Mr M of £1,000. The CRB fully accepted our findings and recommendation.