Whether a specific company is, or has applied to be, SIA approved
Published 6 January 2025
© Crown copyright 2025
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/whether-a-specific-company-is-or-has-applied-to-be-sia-approved/whether-a-specific-company-is-or-has-applied-to-be-sia-approved
Request
Does [REDACTED] – or any of its associated companies or trading entities – hold, or has ever held, the Security Industry Authority ACS accreditation?
Does [REDACTED] currently have a live application to become an approved contractor with the Security Industry Authority? If so, what date was this application lodged, what stage is it at currently, and what is the outcome of any audits that have taken place? Can you supply all correspondence (including attachments) between the Security Industry Authority and [REDACTED] from three months prior to the application up to and including today’s date?
Response
You can use our public register of approved contractors to find out whether a company is an SIA approved contractor.
The remaining requested information is exempt from disclosure under section 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) because it is commercially sensitive. Section 43(2) of the FOIA relates to information that would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person (including the public authority holding it) if disclosed. In this case, the person is considered to be the controlling minds of [REDACTED].
Prejudice test
In deciding whether the release of this information would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of [REDACTED], I have first applied the prejudice test.
Applicable interests
Publishing the history of this company’s registration as an approved contractor, and any applications for approval, may affect its ability to fairly compete with other approved contractors for business within the industry. This is because we have not published the registration and application histories of any other approved contractors. Only publishing this company’s history could expose it to disadvantage. It could also lead to the public making detrimental assumptions or conclusions about why we published this company’s history as opposed to any others, which would directly impact the company’s interests.
Nature of prejudice
We have assessed the nature of the prejudice to be of substance. This is because, while the company would be able to provide context around its history, the SIA could not because we do not hold this information. Publishing the information without context leaves it open to interpretation by the public. Publishing the information only about this company and not any other approved contractors isolates [REDACTED] and unfairly highlights its background and company decisions. This exposes [REDACTED] to harm.
It is my view that the prejudice test is satisfied.
Public interest test
The SIA must also consider the public interest test when applying this exemption.
We acknowledge there may be a public interest in publishing more detailed information about approved contractors because it allows the SIA to remain open and transparent as a public body, contributing to public confidence in us as a regulator.
However, the SIA considers that, in this case, the severity of the prejudice outweighs the public interest in disclosing it. This is because this information would not assist public understanding of the ACS, this specific company, or any other company, because the SIA is unable to provide context around any approved contractors’ registration histories. In addition, we have assessed the severity of the prejudice to be ‘of substance’ because of the negative assumptions and conclusions it may attract. For example, it may lead the public to assume that this company is incompetent, which would in turn negatively affect its negotiating position when competing for industry contracts and its current commercial interests in any live contracts it may have.
Our public register] already provides the public with the necessary information about our approved contractors.
[Ref: FOI 0535]