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: