Abbey Petkar, Managing Director of Magenta Security Services discusses the issue.
In recent months, it has become quite clear to me that the security industry is facing one of its biggest issues.
The security industry has always been riddled with cowboy firms and rogue operators. These companies take business away from legitimate businesses by undercutting costs, yet they provide clients with substandard services. Too many times, I have seen customers realise they made a costly mistake by working with these companies.
Loophole
Yet these companies are free to carry on as they are. They can set up one day and disappear the next. And it’s happening because the Security Industry Authority (SIA) has created a loophole in its system that lets them. The current situation allows anyone — no matter that person’s background — to set up a security firm. All you need is a couple of officers with SIA licenses. Employment agencies are also taking advantage of the loophole by offering customers security officers while they take on other staff members, such as warehouse operatives. These officers are usually self-employed, and that’s where the problem lies.
Accreditation of individual security officers has gone a long way in improving the reputation and abilities of individuals. But that’s as far as it goes. Yes, these companies are meeting the legal requirement of using licensed officers for the work they do, but they shouldn’t be self-employed. The fact that companywide accreditation has remained voluntary makes us a laughing stock when compared to other high-profile industries facing tougher regulations.
Under the current circumstances, many self-employed security officers are being exploited. Unlike full-time employees, they are paid minimum wage, pay no national insurance, and don’t get any benefits such as holiday or sick pay. Under HMRC regulations, these self-employed officers should not be working full-time hours on the same site, as many of them are. But because of the economic situation, they’re forced to work the long hours to make ends meet.
Security officers at greater risk
Using self-employed officers (and paying them little) allows rogue operators to charge customers less, because they don’t have to pay for backup and support. As a legitimate security provider, I am happy for there to be healthy competition among security companies, but it must be on a level playing field. You simply cannot compete against a company that undercuts you by 30-40 percent, which is what we are now coming across on a regular basis.
The second issue is even more serious and could have a massive impact on the industry. These self-employed security officers have no support from a control room and no backup if they need it. They are putting themselves at risk because nobody is checking on them.
And the situation gets even more serious for the customer, who may not be aware of the consequences until it is too late. If anything happens to one of these self-employed officers on site, there will be no protection, no guarantees, and no insurance cover. The customer will be held accountable. And it would take just one big claim to tarnish the whole industry for years to come.
When it comes to security, using unaccredited companies that use self-employed officers is where the biggest risk lies. If there is a security failure due to inexperience, the consequences could be devastating. To maintain the trust of our clients, we must avoid cowboy practices and remain professional at all times.
Company regulations
And that’s why the industry needs further regulation, not just of individuals, but of companies, too. The SIA was supposed to improve the reputation of the industry by removing the negative effect of rouge operators and making security more professional. By not having a mandatory scheme that monitors companies as well as staff members, the SIA is taking a step backward, not forward.
If the industry is to move forward, it is our responsibility to raise awareness of what the professional side of the security industry looks like. We need to educate customers that there is a big difference between unaccredited, poorly trained security firms and accredited, professionally trained ones and reinforce the point that quality counts.
Equally, customers need to be more vigilant about the security service providers they are choosing. They must be made aware of the checks they need to carry out, and they must realise that taking unnecessary risks will leave them compromised when something goes wrong. You never truly value your security company until something goes wrong.
If new regulatory systems were put in place for company accreditation, I would welcome this. It would give greater credibility to the genuine security companies over the unregistered cowboy firms, and it would encourage the industry to constantly deliver high-level services that benefit both clients and security officers.
Related post:
Abbey
You’ve made some telling points here but, for me, educating the customer is the biggest challenge. Too many just zero in on the price, giving less weighting to factors such as quality, experience, service, etc. Perhaps it’s an assumption on their part that one SIA licensed security officer is as good as another, so why should I not buy the cheapest?
As you point out, self-employed officers are a risk and, harsh lesson though it might be, perhaps we need a high-profile case to illustrate the dangers…
I agree completely that educating the consumer is the key here. Although, haven’t most people heard and yet gotten burned by the old saying “You get what you pay for.”
In our (consulting) industry, one of our biggest fixed costs is errors and omissions insurance, yet I constantly hear of competitors that promise the clients they have coverage but do not.
I long ago decided that I would seek out clients that understood the value of a legitimate business, and hope that there wew enough such clients to keep the lights on.
The Security Industry Authority (SIA) at Home Office could include such regulation into their reform of the current framework.
—
Andrew Wallace @Andrew Wallace on Twitter.
Putting quality work and savvy customers over higher volume is a difficult decision. While you might not be able to compete dollar for dollar against the cheapest company on paper that doesn’t mean you have to move down to their level to compete and it sounds like get that. It’s hard to watch jobs go to the lowest bidder knowing what will happen but in the long run you’ll feel better about yourself and you’ll have less stress because you won’t be going back to fix issues where corners had to be cut to compete.
Sometimes we have found that there’s good money to be made in cleaning up someone elses mess. There’s one project that we lost because we were too high, but the low bidder did such a bad job we ultimately got hired (at the higher price) to fix it. Years later the same thing happened with the same client. When you ask people to list their purchasing priorities, they always list “price” further down the list. Yet, job after job is awarded soley on price, regardless of what they say. One answer is a “prequalification round” that selects potential bidders on… Read more »
… Mr . Petkar is misguided in his criticism of self employment ! Many Baristers are self employed ; but , because they are both highly qualified ; and , highly regulated by the Bar Council , their clients enjoy qualitative reassurance and access to redress , if necessary ! UK Security Licensing , since it`s inception in 2003 , has provided a welcome first step on the transitional ladder which many ( myself included ) hope will transform ` operative ` into `expert security practitioner` ; however , for this to occur , the managers and owners of Security… Read more »
interesting to know, but in Canada we have almost the same problem with fly by night Security Co… in my books we need more/better regulation of security Co. on the global scale… as we moving towards global economy/world… – how I see it… also some fly by night Security Co. moving from country to country… destroying image of the industry…
I agree, all of us need to help educate and call for proper and close regulations of private cow boy security companies. They are destroying the profession and providing low level services.
Is private security something every private company can offer and is SIA not fit for purpose of regulating the cow boy companies or is it just too expensive to be approved security company by the SIA?
I think you make a great point @jjoger, and on paper such an assumption as ‘One SIA-licensed officer is as good as the next’ sounds fairly resonable. I suppose a potential problem with educating to the contrary is that it good de-value the SIA licence?
Malcolm, good to see your name on this discussion, feel like it’s been a while, welcome back! Interesting points you make, personally I’m not convinced that a high-priced role like a barrister, which benefits (for them) of being extremely limited in size, can be used as model for the guarding profession. Yes, security officers shouldn’t be treated as low-cost commodities, but can they be compared to an industry that is so far removed?
The point you have discussed about security companies very much true and it happen most of time abut not all the time. Because I am also working with security company called http://www.vpgsecurity.com/construction-security,18.html from last couple of years and this behavior saw with those companies which are not licensed or not properly settled.
I’ve just looked at Magenta Securitys employee reviews and its mostly 1 star rated on Indeed, which shows the average employee is undervalued and overworked, so if Magenta Security really cares for employee welfare, they should start practicing what they preach. There are a couple of jobs listed where this company only pays the supervisor 30p more than regular guards (source Indeed.com listing) It seems to me this brownie point scoring post is only because Magenta have lost contracts to cowboy companies. Yes I agree cowboy companies need to be regulated out, but I wouldn’t want your company getting more… Read more »