As part of the SIA’s stakeholder engagement strategy, the third Vehicle Immobiliser Network meeting will be held on Friday 20 March in London.

The meeting is being organised and facilitated by London Parking Control Ltd, with the full support of the SIA. The event follows the successes of the first two meetings held in January and November last year.

The meeting is an opportunity for those working in the sector to engage with the SIA and others in their industry. Delegates will be able to discuss and explore issues about the industry and regulation.

If you would like to attend the meeting, which is free of charge, please visit www.the-sia.org.uk/home/licensing/vehicle_immobilising/vi_network.htm to register your interest by 6 March 2009.

Don’t miss your chance to have a say.

If you’re not a vehicle immobiliser already, but would like to become one, we offer training that is accepted by the SIA for the vehicle immobiliser licence.  We run courses regularly at our training centre in South East London.  Call Sue on 020 7237 6007 for more information or checkout our website.

In the wake of articles published on SMT Online and Infologue.com, IPSA chief executive Justin Bentley offers some strong views about the Regulator’s recent performance.

Last month, Infologue.com’s Editor Bobby Logue raised an important question when requesting the Regulator to release the critical Delivery Review for public consumption. The document that, at least in part, had resulted in the departure of (then) Security Industry Authority (SIA) chief executive Mike Wilson.

At a recent meeting convened by the International Professional Security Association (IPSA), members brought up the lack of openness of the SIA and requested the International Council to publicise their concerns.

The SIA, of course, has since released two documents scripted by itself – a summary of the Delivery Review and a document outlining progress made to date against some of the criticisms. What we still haven’t seen is the original document.

Is there something to hide?

What is it that the Regulator and/or the Home Office is refusing to tell us all? Why was it decided by the Board that the best course of action was to force out the chief executive within days of receiving the report?

Was Mike Wilson considered by the Board to be so ineffective that he wasn’t to be given the chance of rectifying the highlighted problems?

Surely many of the issues raised actually relate to management practices put in place from Day One?

Looking through the released documents, some items are of no surprise. There are a number of criticisms about working with Stakeholders and enforcement – areas in which the Regulator had begun improvements last year, and those have continued since November.

For a body which has added countless levels of administrative burden to the industry, and instigated an inspection scheme which strays far away from quality of service delivery, it appears that the Regulator itself has been lacking in numerous areas of Best Practice.

What’s going to be done about the situation?

While it’s nice to hear that some people have now been moved from temporary to permanent contracts and will receive appraisals (once a third party contractor has been appointed for this), what we want to know more about is the failings that have occurred in service delivery – and, more importantly, what will be done about them.

At the present time, we still have:

• Call Centre staff that give out incorrect advice (which, in certain cases, could lead to a person unwittingly committing a criminal offence). Just how difficult is it to grasp the fact that a security dog handler is also a security officer
• No clear escalation procedure for the more difficult queries channelled through the Call Centre. If it isn’t on the script, say: “I will call you back”… and then don’t bother
• Application forms being rejected for small reasons that a phone call could clarify. It’s far easier to post everything back to the applicant, irrespective of the fact this delays them obtaining their licence by a week and possibly prevents them from working during that period. How about some customer service? Even Licence Dispensation Notices (LDNs) do not help here, as the application has not been accepted.
• Applications that, for no obvious reason, become “stuck in the system”. Mavis falling ill or taking a holiday while the application is sat on her desk shouldn’t be a reason to prevent somebody from working.
• Documentation being returned to the incorrect address by courier ….. and being signed for by the incorrect addressee.

The Regulator is supposed to be transparent

We have to accept the SIA. We don’t have a choice. The Regulator is the sole provider of the licenses required by law for security staff to work in this industry.

As a Government-appointed body, the SIA is supposed to be transparent. We want to know that they’re aware of problems still in the system, and we want to know what they will be doing to improve their procedures.

Don’t misunderstand me. The SIA has already significantly improved on the initial systems set in motion, but there’s still room for improvement. The industry (and the SIA’s end customers, the Stakeholders) wish to be a part of the journey, not simply taken along for a ride.

98% of door supervisors have passed night time inspections in Nottingham and Chesterfield’s city centres’ pubs and clubs.

119 door staff working at 29 city centre venues in Nottingham were checked by SIA investigators and Nottingham Police. 97.5% of the staff passed, with only three individuals found working without SIA licences - who will be dealt by the police.

And in Chesterfield just one door supervisor was discovered unlicensed, resulting in a compliance of 98%.

SIA Head of Investigation, Jackie Munn said: ‘It is important for the public to know that they are being protected by trained and qualified door staff so this result is reassuring.’

Eight door supervisors were found and reported for working illegally in Scotland on Friday 19th January, following SIA licence checks carried out in pubs and clubs.

SIA investigators and Police visited 18 venues in Livingston. Of the 44 door staff checked, 40 were working legally with valid SIA licences. However, 4 were found to be working without a licence and reported to the procurator fiscal.

Strathclyde Police and the SIA also went to four premises In Wishaw and Motherwell, where 16 door staff were checked. Four of the door supervisors in Wishaw were found to be working illegally and the remaining 12 door staff held valid SIA licences.

An SIA Head of Investigation said: ‘The law is quite clear; it is illegal to work without an SIA licence. In doing so, these operatives not only risk prosecution but put the public at risk.’

Sergeant Ian Harkin from Strathclyde Police said: ‘The success of the operation demonstrates the benefits of working in partnership with the SIA. Strathclyde Police officers are committed to robustly enforcing this area of legislation. The safety of patrons attending licensed premises will continue to be a priority.’