 | Home > Off Topic > DBS checks |
 
|
|
|
| Adammacky Member Since: 28 Dec 2019 Location: West Midlands Posts: 309  
|
Not sure if this is much help but I recently did 2 weeks work in a school through an agency covering part of the catering team off with covid19, when I arrived no mention of a DBS and I did check with the head, she said she didn't require it.
 |
||
19th Mar 2021 2:55pm |
|
| excossack Member Since: 22 Feb 2012 Location: North West Posts: 5884 
|
Cheers Adam. I have poked management so lets see what happens. The lady in the school was sure we need them. Lets see. 1999 Defender TD5 110
Regards John M0VAZ Econet Station 48 no clock |
||
|
19th Mar 2021 3:02pm |
|
| LandRoverAnorak Member Since: 17 Jul 2011 Location: Surrey Posts: 11324
|
In theory, no. There was a push a few years ago to make sure that DBS checks were only applied where they were actually relevant, i.e. where there was a reasonable expectation of the person being alone with those being protected. However, in practice schools tend to err on the side of caution and require them of anybody coming through the gates. I've spent many hours arguing the toss about this, mostly to no avail
 Darren
110 USW BUILD THREAD - EXPEDITION TRAILER - 200tdi 90 BUILD THREAD - SANKEY TRAILER - IG@landroveranorak "You came in that thing? You're braver than I thought!" - Princess Leia |
||
|
19th Mar 2021 3:45pm |
|
| landy andy Member Since: 15 Feb 2009 Location: Ware, Herts Posts: 5804 
|
My wife controls who, especially trades, come onto her school grounds, and from previous discussions with her I believe it’s down to the school to a degree. The important parts I believe are how long you are going to be there. For instance, a scaffolder won’t need to be as he will come onsite for a day or so, do his stuff, then come back at the end of the job for strip down day or so. But it’s different if you are on site everyday, for many days together.
I can ask her for more clarification when she gets home. |
||
|
19th Mar 2021 5:17pm |
|
| blackwolf Member Since: 03 Nov 2009 Location: South West England Posts: 17598 
|
No, you should not require a DBS check in this scenario, and it may well be illegal for anyone to insist that you have one.
|
||
|
19th Mar 2021 5:21pm |
|
| landy andy Member Since: 15 Feb 2009 Location: Ware, Herts Posts: 5804
|
Speaking to wife now and as my comment above. It’s how the school wish to apply the rules. Over four days in a row, and being unsupervised are major triggers for requiring a DBS.
|
||
|
19th Mar 2021 5:51pm |
|
| Bill1919 Member Since: 04 Mar 2017 Location: Dorset Posts: 56 
|
That's correct it's the being unsupervised on school premises is the major concern and would require an enhanced DBS.
|
||
|
19th Mar 2021 6:46pm |
|
| Bill1919 Member Since: 04 Mar 2017 Location: Dorset Posts: 56
|
Just re-read original post. "We cant get into that half of the school building that I know of" would imply DBS not required.
|
||
|
19th Mar 2021 6:49pm |
|
| Rashers Member Since: 21 Jun 2015 Location: Norfolk Posts: 3564 
|
The company I work for do School inspections for Building Services. We all have enhanced DBS checks and I have never been asked to show any evidence in any school. I put this down to only ever being escorted whilst on the School site.
It works both ways as my Company wouldn’t want to be sending any undesirable into a School. I would hope they wouldn’t want to employ an undesirable either 
I am afraid many organisations put a lot of faith in a piece of paper that in all fairness only states that the person had not been caught at the time of the check. Seems a bit over the top by the School. After all, you wouldn’t need a DBS check to walk past the School at kicking out time or you wouldn’t need a check to live in a house next to the School? |
||
|
19th Mar 2021 8:08pm |
|
| Siwynne Member Since: 04 Nov 2016 Location: West lancs Posts: 593 
|
The fact that the building is on school grounds is the issue. OFSTED use just such words in the compliance sections when looking at the single central record and DBS checks. If they appear and a picky inspector asks about who is using the building on the “school grounds” then the fact that there is no access into the other half of the building doesn’t matter. As member of the leadership team at a school I would be asking for enhanced DBS checks to cover my arse. The last thing you need during an OFSTED inspection is to be found non compliant and fail on something that is not technically anything to do with the education of children.
|
||
|
20th Mar 2021 5:41pm |
|
| miker Member Since: 13 Sep 2015 Location: Surrey Posts: 1768 
|
But "covering your arse" surely indicates staying within the law. And Applying for a DBS check "just in case" is technically against the law.
I'd say in this case that it's unnecessary, you have no chance of unsupervised access to the students based on your description. I deal with DBS heavily in my role as a scout volunteer. |
||
|
20th Mar 2021 5:56pm |
|
| landy andy Member Since: 15 Feb 2009 Location: Ware, Herts Posts: 5804
|
“ we will be in the area same time as the kids as we move from car park to building.”
I think that the school are quite right if they choose to protect the children in their care as much as possible, and how they see fit too. If they do require DBS they aren’t making you do anything detrimental. It’s just a check. |
||
|
20th Mar 2021 6:26pm |
|
| Leamreject Member Since: 19 Dec 2020 Location: Middle Earth - Leamington Spa Posts: 970  
|
This is a grey area, my wife is on the committee of a school club but doesn’t ever go on site, to do her role she requires a clear DBS check.
Where kids are concerned everyone has to err on the side of caution, even when common sense doesn’t appear to prevail Ride like you stole it!! If I’m not on a bike it’s because only a 4x4 will do… 2011 2.4 Puma 90 HT |
||
|
20th Mar 2021 7:07pm |
|
| blackwolf Member Since: 03 Nov 2009 Location: South West England Posts: 17598
|
The problem with this attitude is that it is actually illegal to demand that someone who doesn't legally require a DBS check should undertake one, and there is no reason at all why a school should be allowed to break the law on the pretext that it protects the children. Anything involving small fry is an emotive subject. There are many institutions and employers (including my own employer) which demand that employees undergo DBS or enhanced DBS checks which they are almost certainly not empowered to demand, but they get away with it firstly on the emotive (and perhaps understandable) pretext that it protects children, and secondly on the basis that someone who has nothing to hide has no reason to object. This doesn't really make it right, though. I'm not sure what would happen either if someone who was not legally required to undergo a DBS check was refused a job or sacked from a job as a result of a DBS check to which they were improperly subjected. What happens if one or more of the OP's colleagues, who previously worked in the office, are now required to undergo a DBS check and have something shady in their background? |
||
|
20th Mar 2021 7:34pm |
|
|
|
| All times are GMT |
< Previous Topic | Next Topic > |
Posting Rules
|
Site Copyright © 2006-2025 Futuranet Ltd & Martin Lewis
