The Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) is a non-departmental public body of the Home Office that helps employers in England, Wales, the Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man make safer recruitment decisions by processing criminal record checks. Formed on 1 December 2012 from the merger of the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) and the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA), the DBS issues certificates detailing an individual’s criminal history and maintains the Children’s and Adults’ Barred Lists to prevent unsuitable people from working with vulnerable groups.
The service offers four types of checks tailored to specific roles:
Basic DBS check: Available for any purpose, showing only unspent convictions and conditional cautions.
Standard DBS check: Shows spent and unspent convictions, cautions, reprimands, and warnings not subject to filtering.
Enhanced DBS check: Includes Standard check details plus relevant non-conviction information held by local police forces.
Enhanced with Barred List check: Includes Enhanced details and checks whether the individual is on the DBS Children’s or Adults’ Barred List.
Employers must be legally entitled to request Standard, Enhanced, or Enhanced with Barred List checks, typically for roles involving regulated activity with children or adults, or specific licensed positions. The DBS also manages barring referrals, where organizations can report concerns about staff or volunteers who have caused or posed a risk of harm to vulnerable groups.
“Can I avoid Disclosure and Barring if I’ve been gagged inside a compromise agreement or non-disclosure agreement?”
No, you cannot avoid the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) process based on a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) or compromise agreement.
NDAs are legally binding contracts, but they cannot override statutory requirements or public interest obligations. The DBS check is a legal process designed to protect vulnerable groups, and information relevant to an individual’s suitability for a role involving regulated activity must be disclosed, regardless of any private agreement.
Courts and legal precedent consistently hold that NDAs cannot be used to:
Prevent reporting of crimes or wrongdoing.
Obstruct official investigations.
Override legally compelled disclosures, such as those required by the DBS for safeguarding purposes.
Most well-drafted NDAs include clauses that explicitly exempt disclosures required by law. Attempting to use an NDA to conceal information from a DBS check could itself be considered a serious offense, potentially leading to prosecution for perverting the course of justice or providing a false statement to obtain a certificate.
“A senior Wirral Council employee was found inside an external investigation to have financially abused disabled council tenants. She was gagged inside a compromise agreement and paid off £110,000. Despite disclosure and barring, she later became interim Director of Adult Social Services at Reading Council. How could this occur?”
The scenario you describe appears to refer to Maura Noone, a former senior official at Wirral Council. Based on public records and campaigner reports, here’s how the situation likely occurred:
The Compromise Agreement: Maura Noone was involved in a serious safeguarding scandal at Wirral Council, which included the financial abuse of learning-disabled tenants. She left the council under a confidential compromise agreement, which reportedly included a £110,000 payout and a “gagging clause” preventing her from discussing the details.
The DBS Check Failure: The core issue was a failure in the DBS checking and employer due diligence process at Reading Council. While a DBS check itself does not have a “pass/fail” result, it provides information for an employer to make a safe hiring decision.
The DBS check may not have revealed the full extent of the misconduct if the financial abuse did not result in a criminal conviction that would appear on the Police National Computer.
Crucially, Reading Council allegedly failed to conduct adequate due diligence. They reportedly did not contact Wirral Council for a reference or investigate the circumstances of her departure, which would have revealed the serious findings of the external investigation into her conduct.
The Appointment: Despite the known history and the large, secretive payout, Reading Council appointed her as Interim Director of Adult Social Services. This appointment was later described as a “safeguarding emergency” by whistleblowers and campaigners who had exposed the Wirral scandal.
The Outcome: The appointment caused significant public outcry. Campaigners, including whistleblower Martin Morton, highlighted the danger of placing someone with her history in a senior safeguarding role. She eventually left the post at Reading Council.
In essence, the compromise agreement and gagging clause did not legally prevent disclosure to the DBS or future employers. The failure was not in the DBS system itself, but in Reading Council’s failure to properly investigate her background and fulfill their duty of care during the recruitment process.
“Maura Noone currently holds a senior social services position at Bedford Borough Council despite all this. I am forced to ask, “What the hell is going on here?”
Yes, Maura Noone currently holds a senior position at Bedford Borough Council. As of late 2025, she was serving as the Acting Service Director for Adult Services.
This has occurred despite the serious findings of financial abuse during her tenure at Wirral Council and her controversial appointment at Reading Council. The situation highlights significant failures in the safeguarding recruitment process. Her current role demonstrates that the compromise agreement from Wirral did not legally bar her from future employment, and subsequent councils failed to conduct the necessary due diligence to uncover the full circumstances of her departure.
So returning to my initial question, “Can I avoid Disclosure and Barring if I’ve been gagged inside a compromise agreement or non-disclosure agreement?” You responded ‘no’, but the answer appears to be YES, and MORE THAN ONCE. Agreed?”
No, the answer to your initial question remains no.
You cannot legally avoid the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) process by using a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) or compromise agreement.
The case of Maura Noone does not mean that NDAs can override the DBS system. Instead, it highlights a failure in the recruitment and due diligence process by subsequent employers (Reading Council and Bedford Borough Council). While an NDA may have prevented public discussion of her misconduct at Wirral, it did not legally prevent Wirral Council from disclosing the facts to future employers upon request, nor did it prevent the DBS from including relevant information if a criminal conviction was recorded.
The law, including the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, has long held that NDAs cannot prevent reporting of crimes or making protected disclosures. The DBS process exists precisely to uncover such information for safeguarding purposes. The fact that Ms. Noone was hired again indicates a systemic failure in vetting, not a legal loophole allowing NDAs to circumvent DBS checks.
“So Maura Noone appears to be free to do what she likes because in her case, nothing is stopping abusers of disabled people from picking up senior roles”
The case of Maura Noone does not mean an NDA can circumvent the DBS system. The answer to your original question remains no.
The DBS check for her role at Reading Council reportedly came back as “Yes” for passing the requirements. This indicates the serious findings of financial abuse from Wirral Council either did not result in a criminal conviction that would appear on the Police National Computer, or were not known to the DBS at the time. The failure was in employer due diligence: Reading Council accepted references from her previous employers without uncovering the full, non-confidential facts of her departure, which were known to campaigners and should have been investigated for such a sensitive role. Her subsequent employment at other councils reflects a catastrophic breakdown in safeguarding vetting, not a legal ability to “avoid” DBS through an NDA.
“I’m wondering where the next ‘catastrophic breakdown’ will occur?”
The case of Maura Noone does not mean an NDA can legally override the DBS process. The answer to your original question remains no.
Her ability to secure senior roles at Reading and Bedford Borough Councils was not due to the NDA itself, but a failure in the recruitment and safeguarding due diligence by those employers. They failed to conduct proper background checks, contact her previous employer for a reference, or investigate the circumstances of her departure from Wirral Council, despite public campaigning and available information about the serious findings of financial abuse.
The DBS check is a tool for employers; its effectiveness relies on employers using it correctly and asking the right questions. The “catastrophic breakdown” occurs not in the DBS system, but in the governance and accountability of the hiring authorities who are meant to protect the public.
“Why didn’t senior staff working at Reading and Bedford Borough Councils simply put Maura Noone’s name into Google and discover her connection to the long-term abuse of disabled people at Wirral Council?”
Senior staff at Reading and Bedford Borough Councils likely did not discover Maura Noone’s history because they failed to conduct basic due diligence. Public records and campaigning blogs (like “Wirral In It Together” and “Wirral Leaks”) extensively documented her involvement in the financial abuse of disabled people at Wirral Council and her £110,000 payoff. A simple web search using her name and “Wirral” would have revealed these articles, which were published years before her appointments. The failure to perform this basic check represents a severe lapse in safeguarding responsibilities for such sensitive roles.
Return to Bomb Alley 1982 – The Falklands Deception, by Paul Cardin
Asif Hamid, who went on the run after conning Children in Need, reinvented himself as an entrepreneur but has links to firms that went bust owing £6.2 million tax
Asif Hamid was appointed as Liverpool city region’s business lead in 2017
A company run by a Labour council appointee once convicted of defrauding BBC Children in Need received almost £1 million in government contracts despite failing to pay staff the minimum wage, The Times can reveal.
Asif Hamid, who runs a call centre empire, was appointed by the Labour-run Liverpool city region in 2017, serving as the mayor Steve Rotheram’s business lead until 2023.
His firm, The Contact Company, secured lucrative central government work despite his criminal past and its breaches of minimum wage laws.
Hamid with Liverpool Mayor Steve Rotheram
His company won nearly £800,000 in telecoms contracts from the Treasury and VisitBritain between 2022 and 2024 and a place on a multi-billion pound government-approved contractor agreement in 2021.
The revelation raises questions for the government as to how Hamid’s firm passed due diligence checks on suppliers.
Hamid went on the run in Pakistan in 1990 after being arrested for conning a hotel in Burnley and the charity BBC Children in Need out of £4,500 by misleading donors about fundraisers. In 1996 he handed himself in and was jailed for ten months at Burnley crown court.
He had convictions aged 19 for possessing an offensive weapon in a public place and, aged 20, for deception, after cashing a benefit cheque that he falsely claimed had never arrived.
Hamid has reinvented himself as an entrepreneur, building a network of call centre businesses on the Wirral, bolstered by public grants and contracts.
He sat on the local economic partnership (LEP) from 2010 and served as its chair between 2017 and 2023, and chaired the Wirral Chamber of Commerce.
Hamid, who was awarded an MBE and was photographed with David Cameron when hosting the prime minister on a visit to the region, described himself as a “leading entrepreneur” whose expertise was “highly sought by local and national commercial organisations, as well as by members of parliament”.
Hasif hosted a visit from David Cameron
In October 2010, his firm bought a 29,500 sq ft office from receivers after the collapse of Felton, a building firm in Birkenhead, with a £250,000 Wirral council Think Big grant and a loan from NatWest.
In 2014, it was awarded £1 million by the LEP that Hamid, its founder and chief executive, sat on. The sum, which amounted to a quarter of all the money handed out in the Wirral area, was granted alongside an extra £40,800 for staff training.
The company, which already had a turnover of £10 million, used the money to move into a new 900-seat premises and take on new staff.
At the time, the LEP and Hamid denied any conflict of interest. Liverpool city region said: “At no point was the LEP board or its members, including Mr Hamid, involved in decision making as to appraisal of applications or awards of grant.”
In 2017 Liverpool city council faced a backlash when it approved a 45,000 sq ft waterfront call centre for Hamid’s company on prime land, without a public bidding process.
Hamid was appointed MBE in 2017
Rotheram defended the deal, praising The Contact Company as “one of the city region’s more recent success stories”. The plan, which a source said was drawn up at a turbulent time when the council had no permanent chief executive, was later scrapped.
A whistleblower claimed to have raised specific concerns about Hamid’s past with senior Labour Party figures in Merseyside, but these were ignored. “I was shocked,” the source said. “They just turned a blind eye.”
Hamid has no recent criminal convictions but three companies he was linked to have collapsed and owe millions to HMRC and Barclays Bank, according to filings.
TCCL Realisations Limited (formerly known as The Contact Company), The Contact Specialists and Tower Wharf Limited owe HMRC a combined £6.2 million, which liquidators say is unlikely to be recovered.
In 2024, Hamid sold The Contact Company in a pre-pack administration, a process which wipes out creditors but allows an otherwise profitable business to continue trading. He continues to work as its chief executive after the business was sold to a rival firm, Sensée.
Failed to pay minimum wage
Hamid’s business The Contact Company has been named and shamed by the Department for Business and Trade for failing to pay staff the minimum wage. A 2025 listing, relating to historical underpayments during Hamid’s tenure between 2016 and 2019 before the company was sold, revealed 111 workers were underpaid by a total of £2,800.
He also appears to have embellished his academic credentials, claiming on his LinkedIn profile to have completed an MBA at Harvard Business School between 2002 and 2004.
The Ivy League university told The Times they had no record of him studying for a degree. Harvard confirmed that Hamid completed a short executive leadership programme.
Hamid’s business and criminal past raises questions about why his companies continued to receive taxpayer cash.
Peter Smith, a procurement expert, questioned The Contact Company’s place on a £1.5 billion list of approved call centre suppliers despite owing millions in tax. “The fact that this company went bust would usually lead to the customer terminating the contract,” he said. Those familiar with the government’s procurement process claimed that compliance checks were carried out following the Sensée takeover.
The Cabinet Office said: “All of our agreements are awarded in line with procurement regulations and follow robust supplier assurance processes.”
LCR said that Hamid’s election as LEP chair was “an appointment which neither mayor Rotheram or the combined authority were involved in”, adding that he was given the LCR business portfolio by combined authority members collectively.
Liverpool city council said: “We have been on a transformational improvement journey since 2020, and since 2023 have had a new political and officer management team focused on delivering the best services and outcomes for residents.”
Local newspapers the Liverpool Echo, the Wirral Globe and the Liverpool Post have been absolutely nowhere on this. As for The Times, they’ve only just caught up.
The following item got hushed up, serving to defend and protect Asif Hamid in his criminal activities back in 2024. It’s an internal memo from the Head of HR at Hamid’s Birkenhead Contact Company. The Local newspapers were told, but chose to sit on their hands. Maybe our Council Leader (Paula Basnett) will act NOW in the public interest…?
The mental health of Contact Company staff was likely to be down in the doldrums after Hamid had done his dirty deeds, and as it happens, public service journalism was being carried out elsewhere, certainly not in the local rags. Investigatory website Wirral Leaks exposed this fraudster immediately and repeatedly … a long time ago … but nobody who mattered was looking, and if they were, they passed by on the other side…
‘Cross the Mersey
Asif Hamid does not own land in Liverpool; however, his company, The Contact Company (TCC), is planning to develop a 45,000 sq ft office on council-owned land at Kings Dock (specifically the Monarch’s Quay site).
The 11-acre plot at Kings Dock is owned by Liverpool City Council, which acquired it in 2016 using funds from the Regional Growth Fund.
TCC has partnered with developer Yeung Property Group (YPG) to construct a four-storey building to house 1,500 staff, but the land itself remains public property.
While Hamid’s business has previously received public funding and grants for other properties in the Wirral Enterprise Zone (such as the £8.5m Kingsgate Building in Birkenhead), these sites are also not owned by him personally in Liverpool.
The proposal has sparked controversy due to a potential conflict of interest, as Hamid serves as the Chairman of the Liverpool City Region Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP), which promotes Kings Dock as a tourist destination.
Return to Bomb Alley 1982 – The Falklands Deception
From Paul Cardin, a Falklands Conflict veteran. This is a biting commentary, told from the heart. Also included is a 1982 diary, written on location. This book forms a forensic inquiry into several conflict-related mysteries that have never been addressed or resolved - even after 40 years.
