FOI release

Complaints about security operatives and approved contractors

Published 3 November 2021

1. Request

Please tell me:

1. The average response time dealing with a complaint/intelligence made against a security operative and/or SIA contractor for the years 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021.
2. Complaints received specifically against door supervisors from January 2018 to present for the use of excessive force in Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire and South Yorkshire, and how many of these complaints were upheld and resulted in some form of punishment, loss of licence etc.
3. Under front line licence conditions “you must produce your licence for inspection on the request of any constable, any member or employee of the SIA or other person authorised by us”. Please provide a full and complete list of ‘other’ authorised bodies and persons which may request and inspect an SIA licence from front line operatives in England.

2. Response

2.1 Average response time for complaints against operatives

The SIA does not run a formal complaints scheme in relation to the conduct of businesses or individuals operating in the private security industry. Nor does it operate a complaints scheme in relation to licensed premises.

When the SIA receives information from a member of the public regarding the conduct of a private security business or its operatives it is treated as intelligence. This is because any information received can only be utilised by the SIA in so far as it informs any investigation into breaches of the PSIA or the licence / ACS criteria and conditions.

Generally, the SIA does not record the response time for dealing with intelligence. There are two relevant Department Performance Indicator. The first is that 95% of all intelligence assessed as a substantial threat is to be processed and developed within 5 working days of receipt and passed on for action and the second is that 98% of disclosures relevant to a licence holder or application are passed to decisions within 2 working days of receipt.

2.2 Complaints about door supervisors using excessive force

It should be noted that intelligence is not specifically recorded or categorised by reference to the use of force or excessive use of force so I would not be able to provide a breakdown of the number of intelligence reports relating to this category. Intelligence logs may be categorised by violence but this covers a number of situations such as violence by security, violence against security, individuals with a history of violence and violent incidents where security were involved. It is not possible to identify which of these logs related to the use of force or excessive use of force.

The SIA does not typically release intelligence or provide an update regarding any action taken in relation to intelligence. This policy was developed in line with the FOIA; which provides public authorities with an exemption from disclosing information relating to investigations and proceedings an authority conducts (section 30) and from disclosing any information that would prejudice the authorities ability to exercise its statutory functions (section 31). Subsection (3) of both of these sections provides the SIA with an exemption from confirming or denying whether any intelligence is held.

The SIA acknowledges there is a public interest in the public being made aware of whether and what action is taken by the SIA in relation to intelligence it holds because it allows for public scrutiny of its effectiveness as a regulator and contributes to public confidence regarding standards within the security industry. However, the SIA considers there is a more significant public interest in ensuring that the disclosure of intelligence should not prejudice its ability to conduct is investigations and exercise its regulatory functions, for example by protecting the integrity of ongoing and/or future investigations.

2.3 List of ‘other’ authorised bodies and persons

I have attached a list of the organisations that have been provided with authorisation in line with s19 of the Private Security Industry Act 2001. The names of persons within these organisations are exempt from disclosure. We are not obliged, under section 40(2) of the Act, to provide information that is the personal information of another person if releasing it would contravene any of the data protection principles as set out at section 34 of the Data Protection Act 2018.

The first principle requires that the disclosure of the requested personal data must be lawful and fair. Under the Act the disclosure of personal data is considered to be lawful if:

• there is a legitimate interest in the disclosure of that personal data
• the disclosure of the personal data is necessary to meet that legitimate interest
• the disclosure would not cause unwarranted harm to the data subject

Having considered the release of this piece of personal data, I am of the view that it would not serve any legitimate interest.

[Reference: FOI 0292]