FOI release

How the SIA responds to reports of misconduct by licence holders

Published 29 November 2024

Request

I am submitting this Freedom of Information request regarding the conduct and training standards of SIA-licensed security guards employed by [REDACTED].

This request arises from an incident when SIA-licensed guards demonstrated a lack of awareness regarding basic public rights, particularly the right to film in public spaces.

During the incident, the guards:

• demanded deletion of lawful footage
• attempted to detain a member of the public without justification
• incorrectly asserted that filming was prohibited

This raises questions about the competence and preparedness of these guards to perform their duties, and it suggests serious gaps in the training that should equip them to uphold the standards promoted by the SIA.

I am therfore requesting information on the points oulined below.

Training standards and knowledge verification

Please provide details of the training and certification requirements for guards, especially concerning public rights and lawful public interaction.

Are there protocols in place to re-assess guards who clearly lack even basic legal knowledge?

Guidelines on media deletion requests and citizen’s arrests

What is the SIA’s official stance on when licensed guards are allowed to demand media deletion or conduct a citizen’s arrest?

How does the SIA ensure that guards understand these limitations, particularly in non-criminal situations?

Complaint handling and prior investigations

Has the SIA received any complaints or conducted investigations on this specific incident prior to my request?

If not, will the SIA now consider action given the public missteps displayed by these guards?

Re-assessment of licences for demonstrable non-compliance

Can the SIA scrutinise or revoke licences for guards whose actions display such a stark misunderstanding of the law?

Can guards be required to re-sit training modules to correct these deficiencies?

Public complaint submissions and scope

Can a member of the public submit a complaint to the SIA regarding such behaviour, even if not directly involved, given the impact on public trust and the widely witnessed lack of understanding of basic legal rights?

Response

The SIA holds some of this information.

Training standards and knowledge verification

This information is exempt from disclosure under section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) as it is information that is accessible to you via other means, namely it is available on our website.

The SIA sets and approves standards of training by creating and publishing Specifications for Learning and Qualifications. These specifications are used by awarding organisations such as BIIAB Qualifications Limited, Highfield Qualifications and NOCN, SFJ Awards and other government-regulated awarding organisations recognised to offer assessment and quality assurance for nationally recognised qualifications. The training is delivered by training providers who are in turn approved and audited by one or more awarding organisations.

The pre-requisite training an operative must complete before being able to apply for a licence depends on the sector the operative intends to work in. You can find details of what training is undertaken on pages 10 to 26 of Get Licensed, our licensing criteria.

You can access all the learning and qualifications specifications here: Read the specifications for SIA licence-linked training.

Guidelines on media deletion requests and citizen’s arrests

The SIA does not hold information about the guidelines on media deletion requests.

In respect of citizen’s arrests, I have copied the relevant section from the SIA’s licence-linked indicative content on Principles of Working in the Private Security Industry. This is in the attached PDF.

In order to become a security operative an individual has to attend and complete licence-linked training where they will be required to undergo an assessment. If they successfully complete the assessment, then they will be awarded a qualification from an awarding organisation.

Complaint handling and prior investigations

We do not run a service for complaints about security operatives or companies. Instead, we treat such information as intelligence. We evaluate all intelligence we receive to assess whether there is any intervention within our powers that we should take. We do not contact people who provide intelligence to tell them how we used the information they gave us. This is for data protection reasons and because telling people how we use information could affect our ability to take effective action in future.

Whether or not we received intelligence about this incident is exempt from disclosure under section 31(3) FOIA. This is because if the SIA confirmed or denied whether it has received intelligence or was conducting investigations on this specific incident, it could prejudice the SIA’s ability to prevent or detect crime and apprehend offenders.

Prejudice test

When applying this exemption, the SIA must be satisfied that a prejudice would or would be likely to arise if the information requested were to be disclosed. To determine this, the prejudice test has been applied. A prejudice is otherwise known as harm.

1. Applicable interests – the SIA is the organisation that regulates the private security industry. As such, we have a direct interest in ensuring that those who operate within the industry are doing so legally. If we were to release information about intelligence, or live or pending investigations, without first having ascertained all relevant information we require to make a decision on such investigations, it would harm the SIA’s interests in regulating effectively and honestly.
2. Nature of prejudice – the SIA deems the prejudice to be real because if investigation information were released early, it would harm the SIA’s ability to prevent and detect crime and apprehend offenders. This is because it would give those who are subject to any investigations an insight and an upper hand into our intentions before any formal decisions have been made. It could also lead the subjects to destroy important information, dissipate assets, interfere with potential witnesses, flee jurisdictions, or change their practices to ensure legality, therefore affecting the SIA’s ability to investigate a representative picture of allegations. This would harm the SIA’s ability to be an effective regulator and discharge statutory functions authentically.
3. How likely is it that the prejudice would occur? – in light of the above factors, the SIA has decided that a prejudice would occur if the information was released. Lastly, it could also cause harm to the SIA’s reputation as an effective and fair regulator. This is because releasing information that is subject to live investigation(s) would give an unfair advantage to those being investigated and prevent the SIA from undertaking thorough investigations, protecting the public, and ensuring the integrity of the private security industry.

Public interest test

The second test that must be applied after determining that a prejudice would or would be likely to arise if the information was disclosed, is the public interest test. The question the SIA must ask itself is: does withholding the information outweigh the public interest in disclosure? The factors for and against disclosure are below.

Factors for disclosure:

• Disclosure would promote transparency about the UK government and public authorities
• Disclosure would build public trust in the SIA’s investigations and enforcement approach

Factors against disclosure:

• The prejudice has been deemed as real and to have a reputational damage to the SIA in respect of the way we conduct investigations. This would have repercussions on the industry and the faith it has in us to regulate effectively. This is a reason to withhold the information
• The information is at a new stage and is not ready to be shared as it could prevent the SIA from being able to detect crime and apprehend offenders
• Disclosure would provide an inaccurate picture of the SIA’s investigations as they are incomplete
• The information would not help public understanding of any live investigations due to the fact that it is incomplete
• Due to the information being incomplete, it could cause confusion and may trigger questions that would naturally become answered upon conclusion of the investigation
• Disclosure would give those who are subject to any investigations an insight into our intentions before any formal decisions have been made, giving them an upper hand. It could lead to the subjects destroying important information, dissipating assets, interfering with potential witnesses, fleeing jurisdictions, or changing their practices to ensure legality, therefore frustrating the SIA’s investigations
• Disclosure would not protect the public because it would prejudice the continuation of any investigations which may or may not be ongoing to protect the public and the industry

In light of the above factors for and against, the SIA deems that withholding the information requested outweighs the public interest in disclosing it.

Re-assessment of licences for demonstrable non-compliance

The SIA may revoke a licence for the following reasons:

• It has been obtained using fraudulent documents and/or fraudulent identity
• It has been used by someone other than the licence holder to engage in licensable conduct
• The licence holder does not have the training qualifications they claimed to have on their application
• The licence holder receives a sentence or disposal for a relevant offence and the date their sentence restrictions end indicates they fall into the automatic refusal category
• The licence holder receives a sentence or disposal for a relevant offence and the date their sentence restrictions ends indicates they fall into the consider additional factors category
• The licence holder has been working with an SIA licence without the right to work or the SIA has been informed by the relevant authorities that they do not have the right to work or are in the UK illegally
• The licence holder breaches any of the licence conditions set out in Get Licensed
• The licence holder breaches any of the conditions upon which their licence was issued
• The licence holder breaches any additional conditions placed upon their licence by the SIA
• The SIA holds information which indicates that the licence holder is not a fit and proper person to hold a licence

The SIA will normally only suspend a licence when reasonably satisfied that not doing so could cause a threat to public safety or that suspending the licence is otherwise in the public interest. For example, a licence holder may have been charged with a serious relevant offence or may be subject to an ongoing police or public body investigation into that offence.

More information on this topic can be found in Get Licensed, our licensing criteria. The relevant pages are 57 to 62.

To ensure that a security operative is fit and proper the SIA may impose a condition on their licence to re-sit a training module within a specified period of time. If that additional condition is not met, then the licence may be revoked or suspended.

Public complaint submissions and scope

As per the answer to question 3, the SIA does not run a complaints service. The SIA treats such information as intelligence. If you wish to report a crime or concern then please do so using our website: Report security staff or companies to the Security Industry Authority (SIA).

[Ref FOI 0531]