Unlicensed supermarket security

[marchstvn]

Hi all

 

It has been pointed out to me by a friend that works in a supermarket that their security guards do not have SIA licenses to carry out security guarding activites .

 

I went and asked in the supermarket and spoke to a personnel manager , she told me she wasn't aware supermarket guard needed licenses as it was private property . But so are nightclubs . And also they are not employed as security they are just supermarket employees .

 

My questions are .

 

1)Can these people wear clothing stating they are security ? ie jackets etc with security written on them

2)Can they legally do the job of security guards ?

3)Is a supermarket a licensed premises ?

4)Can they watch and use CCTV , which is following the public without the correct CCTV license ? (it is my belief they can only watch stock on the shelves)

5)How does the data protection act apply to them when using the CCTV ?

 

I have many many more questions , but if i get answers to these basic questions they may no longer need answering.

 

Thanks all

[renegadeimp]

Company employed ones dont. Contracted do.

[Sidewinder]

Hi all

 

It has been pointed out to me by a friend that works in a supermarket that their security guards do not have SIA licenses to carry out security guarding activites .

 

I went and asked in the supermarket and spoke to a personnel manager , she told me she wasn't aware supermarket guard needed licenses as it was private property . But so are nightclubs . And also they are not employed as security they are just supermarket employees .

 

My questions are .

 

1)Can these people wear clothing stating they are security ? ie jackets etc with security written on them

2)Can they legally do the job of security guards ?

3)Is a supermarket a licensed premises ?

4)Can they watch and use CCTV , which is following the public without the correct CCTV license ? (it is my belief they can only watch stock on the shelves)

5)How does the data protection act apply to them when using the CCTV ?

 

I have many many more questions , but if i get answers to these basic questions they may no longer need answering.

 

Thanks all

 

1. In house security do not need SIA licences - their training and activities are deemed sufficient to verify their character, identity and suitability(!). Only where a supermarket contracts out their security do they need an SIA licence. In house security can wear clothing which identifies them as security/loss prevention/anything they like providing it is not misleading, or they can be plain clothes so long as they can identify their position to anybody needing to know.

2. Yes

3. Licenced as in? Alcohol licence? Game?

4. Yes. Your belief is incorrect. Providing that the CCTV is being used for the purpose stated on the DPA register, that the use of CCTV is notified to the data subjects, is being used in accordance with the DPA and access restricted to those with a need to view the footage then this is perfectly lawful.

5. As stated above and operating in accordance with the DPA Code

[marchstvn]

The license part I'm guessing is just an off license.

 

Thanks for the info so far .

 

What happens when they leave the store? I know they are told they aren't allowedoutside the store. so if they chase someone into the car park ? I thought a car park was public space under the road traffic act, so this would be the same as them chasing someone on the street?

 

Thanks

[renegadeimp]

Car park is private land. Not a public place.

[marchstvn]

Ye I thought that renegade but have been reading its to do with the way they allow access, for example the entrance and exit routes are open and access can be gained at any time by anyone.

 

Places that have stated cases that show them to be public places are:

 

1. A privately-owned Caravan site open to campers (DDP v Vivier [1991] RTR 205)

 

2. A school playground used outside of school hours as a leisure park by members of the public (Rodger v Normand 1994 SCCR 861)

 

3. The "Inward Freight Immigration Lanes" at Dover Eastern Docks (DPP v Coulman [1993] RTR 230)

 

4. A field used in connection with an agricultural show but only while the show is open to the public) (Paterson v Ogilvey 1957 SLT 354)

 

5. A Multi Storey car park (Bowman v DPP [1991] RTR 263

 

 

A car park situated within the business premises of a motor dealer for use by customers has been held to be a public place as members of the public using the car park did not cease to be members of the public and become a special class of persons merely because they used the car park as customers. [May v DPP [2005] EWHC 1280].

 

Its all a little confusing

 

Thanks

[Sidewinder]

It does not matter whether in store or out of the store. A security guard (as with any other 'citizen') has the right to stop and detain anybody that they reasonably suspect of committing an offence. No licence is required as it is classed as a Citizens Arrest. A security guard, whether SIA regulated or not has no special power of arrest over and above any other person. No person other than a constable has the right to search you without permission.

 

S. 24A Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

 

The fact that a guard may not be allowed to operate outside the premises would be down to the employer's policy and probably any liability insurance in place. Anybody making a Citizens Arrest and especially where detaining or using 'reasonable force' to prevent the offender absconding needs to be absolutely certain of the offender's guilt and of their actions in detaining the offender - if they don't act correctly then the person detained could easily make an allegation of assault or unlawful imprisonment.

[san_d]

My understanding is that if the security deals with the general public, they do need a SIA badge, regardless it's public or private ground:

http://www.sia.homeoffice.gov.uk/Pages/licensing-requirement.aspx

Do I Need a Licence?

 

 

There are two types of SIA licence:

 

• A front line licence is required if undertaking licensable activity, other than key holding activities (this also covers undertaking non-front line activity). A front line licence is in the form of a credit card-sized plastic card that must be worn, subject to the licence conditions.
  
• A non-front line licence is required for those who manage, supervise and/or employ individuals who engage in licensable activity, as long as front line activity is not carried out - this includes directors* or partners. A non-front line licence is issued in the form of a letter that also covers key holding activities.
  

*For the purposes of the Private Security Industry Act 2001, "director" means executive and non-executive directors, shadow directors, parent company directors and corporate entities holding a directorship.

If you have a non-front line licence you do not need to get another one if you are involved in another area of non-front line licensable activity (for example: if you are a director of a firm supplying close protection operatives but you also supply security guards, you will not need to get two licences).

[renegadeimp]

Front line means doormen etc

[marchstvn]

Security guards are front line, they have direct contact with the public

[maxxer]

Its all about WHO employs them, rather than where it is (private or public)

 

If its 'in house' then they don't need any sort of licence. So if ASDA employs them directly, as asda employees, then they have no requirement to have any sort of licence - be it CCTV or security guard.

 

If its 'contracted' - IE asda do not employ their own staff, but contract to 'bobs security', then the guards need a licence (front line), the directors of the company need a licence (non front line).

 

The reason for this 'non front line' licence was to stop those who were part of the 'underworld' from becoming security company directors if they couldn't get a licence, and to stop criminals becoming company bosses.

 

The only place where the above doesn't apply - is licensed premises - IE nightclubs, pubs etc. There, it matter not if you are in house, or contracted - you require a door supervisor licence no matter who employs you. This was brought in with the licensing, as they thought bad 'bouncers' would just be employed directly by pubs if they wouldn't need a licence, and the whole point of licensing was to clean up the industry from criminal elements.

 

 

 

 

Volunteers also require no licence at all. As long as they are true volunteers - you can supply them lunch, and expenses, but not tickets to the ritz as payment.

[hessey50]

Just in passing there is a difference in the application of the Road Traffic Act and what is otherwise regarded as public and private tucked into a bit of the continous insurance legislation is the a provision to regard for the purposes of that act anywhere the public have unrestricted access crudely if you have a barrier system its private if its pay on display limited time etc its not. So dvla or agents for example can seize untaxed vehicles from a pay and display or free carpark but not from a barriered multi.

As for "arrest" the key word is reasonable so an untrained shop assistant may well have a job persuading a court that their actions were resonable unless they had direct observation of an offence being commited and as Sidewinder says they need to be whoever they are very sure of their ground before taking action.It is also an offence to either impersonate a Police Officer or state you have powers that you havent eg right to search its all in PACE

[tommy456]

 

Does contain some swearing , but it does show some questionable actions by security staff

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/private-police-force-of-100-security-689633

 

Another example of over zealous security staff http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QsWCFIi6aY

[maxxer]

you're using stuff filmed by Charlie V as 'evidence' ???

 

 

Big news for you. Charlie's a well known nutter.

 

 

Take a look at some of his other videos ..........

[ScarletPimpernel]

you're using stuff filmed by Charlie V as 'evidence' ???

 

 

Big news for you. Charlie's a well known nutter.

 

 

Maybe - but what justification could there be for the security staff behaving as they did?

[2ltr16valve]

 

 

Maybe - but what justification could there be for the security staff behaving as they did?

 

 

You don't know what's happened out of the cameras vision.

I'm sure I recall a while ago with one of the videos that the offender had hit or bitten a female member of staff or something along those lines.

Force has to be proportionate to the threat and also if the suspect is compliant or not. Eg. Suspect punches staff in face when challenged. Your not going to try holding their arm at their side. They are likely to be confrontational/violent so you would likely put them on the floor and control them that way. Which from a CCTV or public perspective looks very much over the top.

[ScarletPimpernel]

You don't know what's happened out of the cameras vision.

I'm sure I recall a while ago with one of the videos that the offender had hit or bitten a female member of staff or something along those lines.

Force has to be proportionate to the threat and also if the suspect is compliant or not. Eg. Suspect punches staff in face when challenged. Your not going to try holding their arm at their side. They are likely to be confrontational/violent so you would likely put them on the floor and control them that way. Which from a CCTV or public perspective looks very much over the top.

 

 

I understand all that - but in this case the security staff weren't trying to control and restrain the individual - they were determined to take him back into the store. The individual was quite clearly outnumbered and I am not sure why they didn't put him on the floor on the spot and the hold him until police arrived. What authority do they have for dragging someone back into a store? The attitude of the security staff, and particularly those by the door at the end, appeared to me to be supercilious and challenging, almost as if they were enjoying confrontation and their moment of power rather than defusing the situation.

Presumably, if someone has assaulted staff, the police would be called at once - and there were clearly many more staff around than those fighting - and yet, despite being in a busy city centre, none appeared. There may be a good reason for this, but it struck me as odd.