ILR questions - traffic offences and application timing

Hello,
I'm on a 5 year work permit and will be applying for ILR in about 9 months.  I plan on taking the Life in the UK test in a couple months and I'm pretty set on most other things.  I just want to dot all my i's and cross all my t's.

So I do have a couple questions:

1) Section 7 of SET(O) refers to "traffic offences".   I had an accident 20 years ago and was given a ticket.  Being young and naive at the time, I plead nolo contendre to careless driving.  What's done is done.   However I recall very little detail about it other than it was in the summer of 1990.   I got a copy of my driving record from Florida and it says:  "This is a clean record.  There are no violations to report during the length of history indicated at the top of this report."  which is Complete Driving Record going back to 1982.  I read Florida only keeps things on there for 7 or 10 years.   So what do I put?

2) Timing of application.  I hope to do it in person so plan on jumping online 8 weeks ahead and booking a slot.   My date of entry is April 24.  My employment contract began May 1.  I'm sure it's quite normal to have a gap of a week or so since people don't start working the day they arrive.   Question 2 then is when scheduling an appointment should I count 28 days back from April 24 or May 1?

1. You put the truth.

The big question is did you declare this conviction when you originally applied for your work permit? If you did you need to declare it again. If you didn't then you need to declare it now and include an explination as to why you did not declare it in the first place and hope that they don't look at this as you used deception in order to get your Work Permit. Either way, include your driving record and a letter with an explination stating what you put here.

2. You can apply up to 28 days from the 5 year anniversary of when you ENTERED (24 April), not when you began working. So the earliest you can apply is 31 March.

Thanks for that.

But for the work permit I don't recall any time it would have come up.   My company (very large multi-national) handled most of that process.  That whole process is pretty vague.  I was on a project in NY at the time and back in England with their experience/methods it all went extremely fast.  Offer, contract, approval for transfer.  They sent in the paperwork for the work permit on a Wednesday and the following Wednesday they already were fed-exing the work permit to me.  (Fortunately being in NYC during the week the entry clearance was a one day affair as well.)  All very quick and traffic offences were never asked about.

In re-reading the SET(O) application, if the conviction is spent, it does not appear to need to be declared.  The app reads as follows:

Do you or any dependants who are applying with you have any criminal convictions in the UK or any other country (including traffic offences) or any civil judgments made against you?

Note 3 Convictions spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 need not be disclosed. More information about the Act is given towards the end of this section.

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 enables criminal convictions to become ‘spent’ or ignored after a ‘rehabilitation period’. The length of the rehabilitation period depends on the sentence given. For a custodial (prison) sentence the rehabilitation period is decided by the original sentence, not the time served. Prison sentences of more than two and a half years can never become spent and should always be disclosed. Further information on rehabilitation periods can be found at Nacro’s Resettlement Plus Helpline on 020 7840 6464 or by obtaining a free copy of their leaflet on 020 7840 6427.

This reads that if the conviction is spend, it need not be disclosed.  Am I misinterpreting?

I was a bit confused by that since it says "criminal".   And careless driving, specifically hydroplaning into a light pole, doesn't constitute criminal.   However, the Act itself references the Road Traffic Offenders Act of 1988 which says that a license endorsement "shall be treated for the purposes" of the rehabilitation act.  That reads to me as a traffic conviction is treated the same.

I'm not trying to be deceptive.  I just want to follow the rules.

When in doubt disclose everything and let the Home Office make the decision.

I was a bit confused by that since it says "criminal".   And careless driving, specifically hydroplaning into a light pole, doesn't constitute criminal.   However, the Act itself references the Road Traffic Offenders Act of 1988 which says that a license endorsement "shall be treated for the purposes" of the rehabilitation act.  That reads to me as a traffic conviction is treated the same.

I'm not trying to be deceptive.  I just want to follow the rules.

Driving offenses are definitely criminal in nature.  It sounds like a strong word but I believe it is because the criminal code mandates it, rather than civil.

When in doubt disclose everything and let the Home Office make the decision.

But we shouldn't have to be in doubt.  The guidance looks pretty clear on this so it would be useful to know what is correct.  

If it is the case that people don't know, then fine, but you are stating AS A FACT that it is required and that not declaring it could be seen as deception.  That is a pretty strong statement when it does not appear to be necessary, as the offense is spent.  And incorrect advice, even when prudent and well meaning, is still incorrect.

I did more googling.  After changing the term from 'traffic' to 'motoring' I found loads of info and it is covered by the Rehabilitation Act.  As a fineable offence it was spent after 5 years.

But we shouldn't have to be in doubt.  The guidance looks pretty clear on this so it would be useful to know what is correct.  

If it is the case that people don't know, then fine, but you are stating AS A FACT that it is required and that not declaring it could be seen as deception.  That is a pretty strong statement when it does not appear to be necessary, as the offense is spent.  And incorrect advice, even when prudent and well meaning, is still incorrect.

I'm not saying anything 'AS A FACT' ... I'm saying that if there is any hint of doubt in the applicants mind then it should be declared as it probably won't make a difference anyway. But if there is a doubt and it's not declared and it's not spent, then there could be a MAJOR issues and could be seen as deception. When there are peoples lives & livelyhood are at stake don't you think that is the best course of action?

I gave my opinion, I have not said 'THIS IS A FACT IT MUST BE DECLARED'. The OP said he 'was confused' at which I said if he had doubts then declare it. Which is a view supported by others as well:

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act is unclear on foreign convictions.  When Garry and I looked into it because of my criminal conviction there really is not any real case law we know of that indicates how it is applied.  The best advice is to seek out a professional opinion from a UK criminal solicitor.

From applying for immigration, it is always best to err on the side of caution and disclose information if you are unsure if it falls under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.  If it was a shoplifting incident when you were 16 30 years ago, you might consider not disclosing it, but if you do disclose it, it won't count against you.

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act is based on the sentence actually imposed, though UKBA by their own guidance are supposed to consider the maximum penalty.  For me, I will likely continue to disclose my criminal background to the UKBA, even though my conviction is now spent, but I will not disclose it in other situations.  I may say something like "I have convictions that are considered spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act which I am not disclosing" if I want to cover all my bases, as then it would be illegal for anyone to hold it against me, but then I can't get accused of trying to hide something.

I think this goes towards clearing it up.   On the SET(O) form it specifically refers you to Nacro for further information.   Nacro's guidance, in turn, specifically says:

The Act covers Great Britain only. No other country is bound by this legislation, although the Act applies to convictions abroad for offences which would be offences here.  (emphasis my own)

I'd be interested to hear whether the "disclose everything" advice is intended to protect the applicant from their own potential mistake in interpreting the rules or the government's potential mistake in applying them.

Weby gives prudent and safe advice to disclose everything, which I assume is based on her experience with a system in which sometimes the rules are applied incorrectly or interpreted in unforeseen ways, otherwise why do more work and provide more information than appears to be necessary to meet the requirement?

Another reason Weby might counsel over-compliance would be in case the applicant has misread the rule (she alludes to it in her third response), but the applicant's inability to understand the rule is a different issue than the system's inconsistency in applying the rules. 

It seems to me as though the problem must arise from the government's inability to apply its own rules consistently.  In other words, I read the information on this thread about spent convictions and I come to the same conclusion as Sara; the convictions are spent and don't need to be disclosed.  I only have my personal immigration experience in the UK to go on, though.

I am not saying WebyJ is a baddie for being overly prudent in the slightest.  And you can see it applied in other topics to good effect (e.g. showing a budget or using the £105-ish amount, after rent and such).  But even in those threads, people will state that a budget isn't required but is just that - prudent.  However, in this thread, the initial response was

1. You put the truth.

The big question is did you declare this conviction when you originally applied for your work permit? If you did you need to declare it again. If you didn't then you need to declare it now and include an explination as to why you did not declare it in the first place and hope that they don't look at this as you used deception in order to get your Work Permit. Either way, include your driving record and a letter with an explination stating what you put here.

Now in this case there was no caveat that this was an opinion only or that WebJ did not know about the specifics of spent convictions.   And even further the implication is that the OP did something wrong by not declaring the spent conviction and could get into real trouble.

If spent convictions are excludable, the OP could be in a right state that they have done something wrong.  Also they could then unnecessarily flag on their ILR app and make complicated an otherwise straightforaward application.

In this instance, I think the overly prudent option (without the disclosure that it was overly prudent and not based on an actual experience) could be more harmful than good.

And how often do we tell people all the things that are not necessary in an application -- like screenshots of IM chats or 300 pictures or a binder.  How is this any different?  Why shouldn't we strive to actually know the actual answer?  Sure, people can misinterpret that answer (assume something is spent when it isn't) but I don't think that should take away from wanting to know the actual answer.  And people misinterpret things all the time on this website, it doesn't mean we necessarily skew an answer for those that may misinterpret.

Again, I am not trying to jump on WebJ but I don't know why it is such an offensive thought to strive to learn the accurate advice about spent convictions and say that anything else is just an opinion or a guess.

I am not saying WebyJ is a baddie for being overly prudent in the slightest. 

I didn't think you were, and I'm sorry if I implied that that was your stance.

And how often do we tell people all the things that are not necessary in an application -- like screenshots of IM chats or 300 pictures or a binder.  How is this any different?  Why shouldn't we strive to actually know the actual answer?  Sure, people can misinterpret that answer (assume something is spent when it isn't) but I don't think that should take away from wanting to know the actual answer. 

This is what I was trying to get at, too.

I'd be interested to hear whether the "disclose everything" advice is intended to protect the applicant from their own potential mistake in interpreting the rules or the government's potential mistake in applying them.

The former.

Again, I am not trying to jump on WebJ but I don't know why it is such an offensive thought to strive to learn the accurate advice about spent convictions and say that anything else is just an opinion or a guess.

Since there is no chart that specifically says X US conviction & sentence = X UK Conviction & Sentence (as alluded to by kitsonk's post that I cited) this would be impossible. While it would be a wonderful thing to tell someone that 'sure, there's not problem, it's spent don't declare it' it's nearly impossible to do without posessing a UK law degree and having the documentation in front of you to be 100% certain.

While (in this case) the likelyhood of it being spent is quite high, as a general rule I will always err on the side of caution & recommend disclosing it rather than make the one mistake and say 'nope it's fine and don't disclose' and have it not be fine & ruin someones life.

And how often do we tell people all the things that are not necessary in an application -- like screenshots of IM chats or 300 pictures or a binder.  How is this any different?  Why shouldn't we strive to actually know the actual answer?  Sure, people can misinterpret that answer (assume something is spent when it isn't) but I don't think that should take away from wanting to know the actual answer.

Again, without being a legal professional there isn't a way to do this...so perhaps the most prudent thing to do would be to tell anyone asking to consult a solicitor, but then there's that 'hassle & expense' that you were alluding to.

Considering that a criminal offense is something serious that it's the kind of documentation people would hold onto to begin with how is it such an awful thing to just recommend declaring it, send in what you have on it and let Home Office do the legwork on it to determine if it spent or not?

Better safe than sorry IMO.