Even Inclusive Employers Can Get It Wrong

For individuals with criminal records, the journey toward reintegration is marked by resilience, reflection, and an enduring hope that change is both possible and recognised. So when a publicly owned agency known for inclusive hiring missteps, even unintentionally, it raises difficult but necessary questions.

Network Rail has made strides in employing people with lived experience of the criminal justice system, and are an inclusive employer. Their reputation as a forward-thinking employer isn't just branding, it's reflected in real opportunities offered to individuals who often face systemic barriers elsewhere. But this case illustrates how even well-intentioned organisations can falter when training, understanding, or consistency lags behind policy.

What Went Wrong And Why It Matters

The individual in question expected his criminal record to be spent, no longer relevant for basic DBS disclosure. Yet during onboarding, Network Rail requested a basic DBS check and received his entire record, reaching as far back as 1996.

“They should have been astute enough to say this is a basic check… What’s spent or shouldn’t be spent is none of our concern.”

And they weren’t hiring for a driving role, yet found themselves querying dangerous driving offences from the late '90s, well beyond any relevant threshold. This wasn’t just procedural confusion, it had a human cost.

“You come out, you expect your stuff to be spent and not show up… They still make you feel like you've been interrogated, grilled. Self-esteem gets knocked again because of their lack of understanding.”

No one expects perfection. But when disclosure mishandling occurs at the hands of a company who advocates for inclusive hiring, it sends mixed signals especially to those already battling stigma and self-doubt.

Let’s be clear, Network Rail did not reject the individual. In fact, they still gave him the job which was a decision that speaks to their wider commitment to fair chances.

“The flip side bit… to be fair, they still gave me the job. Which is really good, right?”

This wasn’t a failure of values, it was a breakdown in training. The frontline staff conducting checks seemingly lacked understanding of spent convictions, how basic DBS checks are meant to operate, and the boundaries of legal disclosure.

“They are meant to know… because I had a chat with someone from National Rail and they said, ‘We are advocates of this.’ It’s like… well, someone messed up here.”

That honesty matters. Because it illustrates the heart of the issue: good policies only work when the people applying them are equipped to do so accurately.

The Emotional Fallout of Getting It Wrong

For people with convictions, disclosure isn’t just a bureaucratic hurdle, it’s a moment that can reopen emotional wounds. Being asked to defend yourself for something from 2009, let alone 1996, without context, nuance, or relevance to the role at hand?

That’s interrogation, not inclusion.

“You’re getting presented with the information without any backstory… It’s just like, ‘Joe Bloggs did this in 2009,’ and you’re expected to interpret it how you want.”

Even with reforms around spent convictions, individuals continue to live with the fear that employers or colleagues will stumble across old news, exaggerated, context-free, and damaging.

“People can Google you and see all this information… which part of it won’t be true because it’s made to sound worse than it is. It’s been what… nine years?”

When organisations get it wrong, even just once, the impact isn’t theoretical. It’s personal.

What Employers Can Learn From This Example

1. Train staff on DBS levels: Know the difference between basic, standard, and enhanced checks and understand which roles actually require each level.

2. Respect the boundaries of spent convictions: Don't treat old records as character assessments. Spent means spent, legally and ethically.

3. Context is everything: If you do encounter a disclosure, provide space for narrative, not interrogation.

4. Transparency matters: If a mistake is made, own it. As Network Rail did here, giving the job despite the misstep.

5. Your brand is only as strong as your implementation: Advocacy needs to show up in recruitment processes, not just press releases.

Accountability with Compassion

Network Rail’s reputation for inclusive hiring is not in question, but this story reminds us that implementation needs constant vigilance. Because for every person who pushes forward after years of reform, every poorly handled check feels like a step back.

No organisation is immune to mistakes. What matters is how we respond, learn, and evolve.

“Someone messed up. And that’s not okay. But to be fair… they still gave me the job. That’s really good, right?”

Yes, and next time, let’s make sure the process feels just as inclusive as the outcome.