rupert

If someone is employed directly by the "client" as a CPO do they need an sia license for CP?

Sounds simple I know; the reason I ask is that there are two bits of conflicting info on the SIA's website;

1; the only expemption is where a company (employer) has been granted AC status and all other conditions of Section4 (4) are met.

2; A Close Protection licence is required when guarding one or more individuals against assault or against injuries that might be suffered in consequence of the unlawful conduct of others. This applies if your services are supplied for the purposes of or in connection with any contract to a consumer.

Contract to a customer - i.e the CPO is contracted by a company to guard a client; or thats how I read it.

But what if you are employed directly by a company or individual who is the client? I.e you are on the books as an employee? You are not contracted to a customer/consumer or third party but are an employee.

Anyone know?

Carl Dowd

I THINK! Rupert...and I look towards a famous London store team for the basis of this statement...that if you are Employed...that is, you are PAYE then at the moment you are exempt a license, except if you are employed by an organisation that holds a drinks license, you know clubs, pubs etc etc. That includes any Parent company... or Limited Partnership.

However, I must warn you that there is a consultation process ongoing as we chat due to the anomalies of training and standards...info on the sia website.

Remember also Rupert...Law is about interpretation and I believe that I am right in saying that LAW does not become LAW as such, until it is tested in court.

Recently here in Scotland the 2003 Land Reform (Scotland) Act failed at its first hurdle...

Trust that this helps...

rupert

Thanks Carl; on a dif note I heard back from CNC today; put my name on the list for App forms to be sent out soon!!

Marcus2RRF

Employed directly for the principle you are ok basically the sia didnt want the hassle of chaufers etc coming on the market as CP but be warned if you doing 2 weeks with 1 client then 2 weeks with another you need a badge

Carl Dowd

Excellent news Rupert...good luck with your application.

Regal Security Training Ltd

If they do not have licences and are employed as a BG to get around it they are called personal assistants ?????????

__________________
Regal Security Training

Carl Dowd

Funnily enough Rst I have seen this in a shopping centre in Aberdeen...They used to have a security label on their clothing and now they are called 'Customer Service Assistants'.

I did wonder though what actually their 'Job description' is and whether or not if they intervened in a security or criminally based incident they (the CSA's) would be covered by insurance?

Regal Security Training Ltd

Well guys its like driving without a licence and indoing so, they not covered by insurance yeah i got a gripe about it.
and you cannot police it? if you report it you lose all integraty and in reality wont work again?

Brummie

__________________
Regal Security Training

Samson

many clients come from abroad and bring there CP teams with them, im not saying ive done this , but some clients have their " guys " signed on as personal assistants , so ive heard

Rich H

If you are directly employed by the Client - you do not need a license - full stop.

However, if the client has set up a 'company' for the benefit of finance, administration (and insurance purposes), then you do need a license. Your working status ie PAYE or self employed bears no relation on whether you are to hold a license or not.

The main reasoning behind the sia not licesning 'in-house' security officers is to do with money - as all business is. The Home Office did not want to fall under the trap of the great expense in providing licenses to all those thousands of Prison Officers. These Prison Officers are in effect in-house security officers and therefore would also be subjected to the same licensing.

Companies such as AG or CRG now only employ those individuals with an SIA license, not because they are legally obliged to - they are not for such countries as Iraq or Afghan, but that much expense is saved on their part with the due diligence already conducted on that prospective employee; CRB/ background check etc.

The bottom rule is "It is better to have than to have not".

Licensing, I'm afraid, is here to stay.

Rich H