From 6 April 2026, changes are in force to the UK umbrella company sector that substantially alter how tax risk is allocated across labour supply chains.

Joint and Several Liability means that if an umbrella company fails to pay the correct PAYE or National Insurance Contributions, HMRC can go after recruitment agencies and end clients for the full unpaid amount. Every party in the labour supply chain becomes jointly and severally liable for tax obligations that stem from an umbrella company’s failure.

Two points are critical to understand from the outset. First, liability is joint and several, meaning HMRC can pursue any party in the chain for 100% of the unpaid amount, regardless of where the failure originated. Second, and perhaps most importantly, there is no reasonable care defence — even if an agency carried out thorough due diligence, it can still be held fully liable.

The new rules aim to combat tax non-compliance, protect workers, and level the playing field by eliminating rogue umbrella providers. The security sector is directly in scope.

How Does the Liability Chain Actually Work?

Understanding the mechanics matters because your position in the chain determines your direct exposure.

Umbrella companies remain employment intermediaries and the PAYE employer in the standard model, but they are no longer the only party potentially liable for payroll taxes where things go wrong. Where a worker is supplied via an umbrella company and there is a UK recruitment agency in the chain, the agency will generally be the party that HMRC can pursue for any PAYE and Class 1 NIC shortfall.

If the client contracts directly with the umbrella, or the agency is offshore or connected to the umbrella, the end client may instead be exposed.

Liability for the taxes occurs from the moment that a payment is due to HMRC. The liability falls on both the umbrella company and the other liable party at the same time — so technically the amount the umbrella has to pay is an amount the other liable party also owes, even though they are not the ones reporting to HMRC.

The practical implication: if your staffing agency uses an umbrella model and that umbrella fails — through insolvency, fraud, or simple non-compliance — HMRC can pursue the agency first, or you directly if the agency is offshore, connected to the umbrella, or otherwise unavailable. HMRC is under no obligation to warn you that a non-compliant umbrella is in your supply chain, and no one should rely on receiving a warning before enforcement begins.

Critically, insolvency does not extinguish the liability: HMRC can pursue you for unpaid taxes even after the umbrella company has collapsed or gone into administration. The most likely scenario in which security companies face a JSL demand is not an investigation into a live umbrella — it is post-insolvency pursuit once the umbrella itself cannot pay.

Does Joint and Several Liability Apply to Security Companies?

Yes, if umbrella companies are present in your labour supply chain — and in the security sector, they frequently are.

The reforms are primarily focused on arrangements involving umbrella companies. Where umbrella companies are used to employ and pay temporary workers, liability for unpaid PAYE and National Insurance may extend beyond the umbrella itself.

In practical terms, this applies to you if you:

• Use a staffing agency that places officers through an umbrella or third-party employment arrangement
• Use subcontractors whose payroll model you have not verified
• Have not mapped the employment structure behind every person currently filling your shifts

The security industry’s reliance on subcontracting to manage demand spikes, fill last-minute absences, and mobilise new contracts quickly makes this an active risk, not a theoretical one. The operational model that has served the industry for decades now carries a direct tax compliance dimension it did not have before April 2026.

It is worth being precise about scope: JSL applies specifically where an umbrella company is involved. Direct subcontracting between two security companies — where workers are direct employees of the subcontractor on a standard PAYE payroll — is a different arrangement. The critical question is not whether you use subcontractors, but how the people in your supply chain are actually employed and paid.

What Happens If You Are Found Liable?

The financial exposure is straightforward: HMRC can pursue any party in the chain for 100% of the unpaid amount, regardless of where the failure originated. There is no apportionment, no cap tied to your share of the relationship, and no good faith defence.

The reputational consequences in a regulated sector are arguably more damaging. If HMRC issues a recovery notice, the issue rarely remains private. It may appear in financial disclosures, auditor commentary, or media coverage. Stakeholders do not distinguish between deliberate avoidance and structural failure. Investors see unmanaged risk. Clients see instability.

For a security company, add the sector-specific consequences: ACS accreditation reviews, client contract compliance clauses triggered by tax enforcement action, and reputational damage in a relationship-driven market where your next contract win often depends on a reference from your last one.

One important misconception to address: HMRC publishes a list of known tax avoidance schemes and non-compliant umbrella operators, and some security companies assume that checking this list is sufficient protection. It is not.

JSL is a separate enforcement mechanism from the avoidance blacklist — it is a recovery tool that applies regardless of whether the umbrella in your supply chain appears on any published register. A non-compliant umbrella can generate a JSL liability without ever having been named by HMRC. Do not treat the absence of a name on the list as confirmation of compliance.

The Employment Rights Act 2025 received Royal Assent in December, and the Fair Work Agency launched on 7 April 2026 with a remit to enforce workers’ rights across the labour market. The Fair Work Agency is expected to take on direct regulation of umbrella companies from 2027, further consolidating supply chain oversight under a single enforcement body. The direction of travel is clear: the government intends to hold every party in the supply chain accountable. Security companies that treat this as a one-time compliance exercise rather than a standing operational discipline are misjudging the trajectory.

What Should Security Companies Do Now?

There is no published government checklist and no single accreditation that eliminates JSL exposure. HMRC has made clear that it expects agencies and end-clients to conduct regular, documented checks on their umbrella suppliers. Those that cannot demonstrate a reasonable process for verifying compliance may find themselves exposed.

For security companies, that translates into five concrete actions.

1. Map your supply chain in full. Identify every staffing agency and subcontractor you currently use. For each one, establish how their workers are employed — specifically, whether an umbrella company sits anywhere in the arrangement. If you cannot answer this today, that is your first priority.
   
2. Request documented PAYE compliance evidence. Ask your labour suppliers to confirm in writing that workers are employed on PAYE and that Income Tax and National Insurance are being correctly remitted to HMRC. Consider what processes are necessary to obtain comfort — potentially in real time — that PAYE and NIC have been calculated, reported through Real Time Information, disclosed on workers’ pay slips, and paid correctly and on time. Document everything you request and everything you receive.
   
3. Prefer FCSA-accredited suppliers where possible. FCSA accreditation provides independent assurance of payroll and tax compliance. Ensure umbrella partners are financially secure and consistently meeting PAYE and NIC obligations. Accreditation is not a complete defence under JSL, but it is evidence of a documented compliance process if HMRC investigates.
   
4. Review your BS7858 vetting exposure simultaneously. If you are using agency-supplied staff whose vetting status you cannot verify, you have a compliance problem that runs alongside — and compounds — your JSL exposure. An officer who is not properly vetted and whose employment arrangement is not clean creates regulatory and tax risk at the same time.
   
5. Rethink how you meet flexible demand. The operational pressure that drives subcontracting in security does not go away. What changes is the risk calculation. PAYE-employed flexible staffing, where the employment relationship is direct and the audit trail is complete, removes the JSL exposure that umbrella or agency arrangements create.

How Does JSL Interact With Other 2026 Compliance Pressures?

JSL does not sit in isolation. Security companies in 2026 are managing several concurrent compliance obligations, and they interact with each other.

BS7858 vetting remains the baseline for every security hire. The 2025 tightening of SIA criminality criteria means the standard your vetting process must meet has moved, and any agency-supplied worker whose vetting you have not verified independently represents a gap in your compliance posture.

Martyn’s Law, which received Royal Assent in April 2025 and enters enforcement no earlier than April 2027, subject to the Home Office’s implementation timeline, will require venues above 200-person capacity to demonstrate compliant security arrangements. Security companies supplying those venues will face increased scrutiny of their staffing documentation — including employment status.

The Fair Work Agency, launched on 7 April 2026, has a remit that overlaps with how security workers are employed and paid. Its enforcement focus on labour market compliance means the supply chain questions JSL raises are being examined from multiple regulatory angles simultaneously.

The companies that will navigate this period well are those that treat compliance as an integrated operational discipline — not a series of separate box-ticking exercises.

Frequently Asked Questions

How GuardPass Can Help

JSL exposure doesn’t start with a compliance failure — it starts with not knowing how the people filling your shifts are actually employed. The security companies most at risk are those operating with gaps in their supply chain visibility, relying on agency arrangements they haven’t audited, and treating staffing as an operational question rather than a compliance one.

If that’s where you are, GuardPass gives you the tools to close those gaps — from licence verification and vetting through to how you source and manage your security workforce.

The direction of travel from HMRC, the Fair Work Agency, and the SIA is consistent: every party in the labour supply chain will be held accountable. The security companies that come through this period without disruption won’t be the ones that got lucky — they’ll be the ones that made deliberate decisions about how they staff.

Disclaimer: This blog is for informational purposes only. Please verify details independently before making decisions.

There was a time when retail security in the United Kingdom could at least pretend to be a deterrent. Uniformed presence, store detectives, and the occasional well-judged apprehension created a fragile but functional ecosystem. Today, that ecosystem has fractured. The modern retail security officer stands not as an enforcer, but as a witness, often unwilling, frequently unsupported, and increasingly irrelevant.

Recent headlines paint a bleak picture. Across London and other major cities, shoplifting has surged, in some cases approaching what senior politicians have described as a “free-for-all.” Incidents have become both more frequent and more brazen, with organised groups sweeping through stores and individuals stealing in plain sight of staff and customers alike. The uncomfortable truth is that this is not merely a spike in crime; it is the predictable outcome of a system that has quietly abandoned enforcement.

The Optics Of Inaction

Security officers are now routinely criticised by the public for “doing nothing.” Social media is awash with footage of thieves calmly filling bags while uniformed guards stand by. Yet this apparent inaction is not negligence; it is policy.

Retailers, unions, and industry bodies have converged, whether intentionally or not, on a doctrine of non-intervention. Security staff are increasingly instructed to observe and report, not to intervene physically. The reasoning is simple: confrontation carries risk. Risk to staff safety, risk to corporate liability, and perhaps most significantly, risk to brand reputation in the age of trial by YouTube.

This has created an operational paradox. The very individuals employed to prevent loss are formally discouraged from preventing it. Instead, they are recast as evidence gatherers, human CCTV systems tasked with documenting crime rather than stopping it.

Zero Intervention: Valid Policy Or Admission Of Defeat?

Let’s be clear: zero intervention is not always written in policy manuals, but it is now widely embedded in practice. Reports indicate that many retail workers are effectively told not to challenge shoplifters, particularly where violence is a possibility.

The rationale is grounded in health and safety legislation. Employers have a duty of care to their staff, and rightly so. Confronting a potentially aggressive offender over low-value goods is difficult to justify in a risk assessment. However, this logic, when applied universally, results in a de facto decriminalisation of shoplifting at the point of sale.

Criminals, unsurprisingly, have noticed.

The Collapse Of Deterrence

Deterrence in retail has always been a delicate balance. CCTV, electronic stock tagging, and uniformed presence are designed not to eliminate theft entirely, but to raise the perceived risk. When that risk disappears, behaviour changes rapidly.

Data suggests that shoplifting has risen dramatically in recent years, with some areas experiencing increases of over 100% across a four-year period. In London alone, tens of thousands of cases are recorded annually, with significant year-on-year growth.

More concerning is the perception, widely shared among offenders, that consequences are unlikely. In some regions, a substantial proportion of shoplifting cases are closed with no further action, often within weeks. This creates a feedback loop: low enforcement leads to increased offending, which in turn overwhelms enforcement capacity.

The result is what frontline staff increasingly describe as ‘open season.’

When Intervention Becomes A Sackable Offence

Perhaps the most demoralising aspect of the current environment is the treatment of those who do choose to act. There have been high-profile cases of long-serving retail employees dismissed for challenging or detaining suspected shoplifters.

One such case, involving a supermarket worker intervening in a theft, drew national attention and political comment. The message to staff is unmistakable: intervene at your peril.

From a corporate perspective, the calculation is cold but rational. A wrongful detention claim, an injury, or a viral video depicting a confrontation can cost far more than the value of stolen goods. In this equation, stock loss is simply a cost of doing business.

For security professionals, however, this represents a fundamental erosion of purpose. If enforcement is penalised, and inaction is mandated, the role becomes untenable, and the image of the security industry in general takes an undeserved hammering.

Health And Safety: The Unanswerable Constraint

No serious practitioner would argue that staff should be placed at undue risk. The escalation of violence in retail environments is well documented. Incidents involving threats, weapons, and physical assault are increasingly common, often linked to organised crime gangs, repeat offenders or substance abuse.

Surveys indicate that a majority of retail workers have experienced abuse, with a significant proportion facing threats or violence. In such an environment, the imperative to prioritise staff safety is both ethical and legal.

Yet ‘health and safety’, while essential, has become a blunt instrument. It is applied uniformly, regardless of context, effectively removing discretion from trained security personnel. The experienced officer, trained in the ASCONE procedure, capable of assessing risk and acting proportionately, is treated no differently from an untrained employee.

This is not safety; it is risk avoidance at any cost, and a road to disaster.

Recommended Reading: Top 10 Characteristics Of A Good Security Officer

The YouTube Effect

Compounding these challenges is the role of social media. Platforms such as YouTube and TikTok have transformed shoplifting into a form of performance. Videos of thefts, often filmed by the perpetrators themselves, circulate widely, sometimes garnering millions of views.

For retailers, this presents a reputational nightmare. A poorly handled incident can become a viral scandal within hours. The fear of negative publicity often outweighs the financial impact of theft, reinforcing the preference for non-intervention.

From the offender’s perspective, the situation is inverted. The absence of consequences, combined with the prospect of notoriety, creates a powerful incentive. Crime becomes both low risk and high visibility.

Policing: The Missing Link

It is impossible to discuss retail security without addressing the role of law enforcement. Retailers do not operate in isolation; they are part of a broader criminal justice ecosystem. When that system falters, the effects are immediate and profound.

Criticism of police response to shoplifting is widespread. In some areas, the majority of cases are not pursued, often due to resource constraints or evidential thresholds. The historic reluctance to investigate lower-value thefts has further undermined confidence, although recent policy changes aim to address this.

Government initiatives, including increased funding and legislative reform, signal recognition of the problem. New measures seek to strengthen protections for retail workers and remove perceived loopholes that have benefited offenders.

These are welcome developments, but they remain, at present, aspirational. On the shop floor, little has changed. Unless and until there is substantial investment in Police Services, and a genuine increase in Officers on the ground, all the political aspirations and commitments are meaningless.

The Illusion Of Technological ‘Solutions’

Retailers have invested heavily in technology. CCTV, body-worn cameras, electronic tagging, and even forensic marking systems. These tools have their place, and in some cases have delivered measurable reductions in crime.

However, technology is not a substitute for enforcement. A camera may record a theft, but it does not prevent it. A tag may trigger an alarm, but without intervention, it is merely noise. Even advanced systems rely on a fundamental assumption: that there will be a response.

Without that human physical response, technology simply becomes theatre.

A No-Win Scenario

The phrase “no win” is not used lightly. Retail security in the UK is caught between competing imperatives:

• Protect staff from harm
• Protect the business from loss
• Protect the brand from reputational damage
• Operate within legal and regulatory constraints

These objectives are not always compatible. In the current climate, the balance has shifted decisively towards risk avoidance and reputational management. Loss prevention, ironically, has become secondary.

For security personnel, this creates a professional dead end. They are held accountable for losses they are not permitted to prevent, criticised for inaction they are instructed to maintain, and exposed to risk without meaningful authority.

The Only Viable Way Forward

There is no technological fix, no policy tweak, and no training programme that can resolve this imbalance in isolation. The fundamental issue is one of consequence.

Until shoplifting carries a credible risk of detection, arrest, and sanction, it will continue to grow. This requires a coordinated response:

• Consistent police engagement with retail crime
• Swift and visible consequences for offenders
• Clear, unified guidelines for intervention
• Legal protections for staff acting in good faith

Without these elements, the current trajectory will persist.

Retailers can continue to invest millions in prevention, but without enforcement, these efforts amount to little more than containment. As one industry figure put it, crime must have consequences.

Conclusion

Retail security in the UK has not failed; it has been systematically disarmed. The shift towards non-intervention, driven by legitimate concerns over safety and liability, has created an environment in which theft can flourish with minimal resistance.

Security officers have become spectators in their own domain, tasked with documenting a problem they are powerless to solve. It is a situation that satisfies no one: not the staff, not the retailers, and certainly not the public.

Until the balance between prevention and enforcement is restored, loss prevention will remain exactly what it has become, a no-win endeavour.

Raise The Standard Of Your Retail Security Team 

If the system has stripped officers of authority, the one thing employers still control is the calibre of the people they deploy. In an environment where every intervention is scrutinised, putting properly vetted, properly trained officers on the ground is no longer a nice-to-have — it is the difference between a defensible incident and a viral disaster.

GuardCheck delivers BS7858-compliant vetting in days rather than weeks, and GuardTrain gives your officers access to the UK’s largest training network, including conflict management modules that matter most when policy demands restraint. Professionalism is the only edge left worth investing in.

Find out how GuardPass supports retail security operations.

The UK private security industry stands on the edge of what may prove to be its most significant structural reform since the introduction of individual licensing under the Private Security Industry Act 2001. For over two decades, regulation has focused almost entirely on the individual operative. Now, attention is shifting, decisively, towards the businesses that employ them.

At the centre of this shift sits the proposed Business Approval Scheme (BAS), the successor to the long-standing Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS). To understand its significance, we must first understand why it exists at all.

How We Got Here

The current regulatory framework, overseen by the Security Industry Authority (SIA), was built on a simple principle: license the individual, and you regulate the industry. That approach has striven to deliver a baseline of competence. Today, hundreds of thousands of licensed operatives work across the UK under that system.

But there has always been a gap, one that seasoned professionals have known about for years. The SIA licenses people, not companies. There is no legal requirement for a security business itself to be approved, registered, or even inspected before trading.

The Approved Contractor Scheme was introduced to fill that gap. It is, and remains, a voluntary quality mark. Companies that opt in are assessed against standards of service delivery, management and compliance.

And therein lies the problem.

Voluntary schemes attract the willing, the better operators, the established firms, those already invested in compliance. Meanwhile, a significant proportion of the market operates entirely outside that framework. Currently, only around 750 businesses are approved, representing a small fraction of the total industry.

The result is a two-tier market: one regulated by choice, the other only by minimum legal obligations.

The Case for Change

The SIA has been candid in its assessment. The existing model is no longer sufficient to deliver consistent standards or robust public protection. The consultation launched in 2024 made that clear, seeking views on a new approach that would place “public protection at the heart” of business approval.

What followed was not a minor tweak, but a recognition that the ACS, in its current form, has reached the limits of what a voluntary scheme can achieve.

The proposed Business Approval Scheme represents a fundamental redesign. It is intended to shift the focus from process-driven audits to the outcomes that security companies actually deliver on the ground.

This is more than semantics. It signals a move away from annual, tick-box assessments towards a more intelligence-led, risk-based, model of oversight. Higher risk businesses will face greater scrutiny, and specialist providers will be expected to demonstrate sector-specific competence.

In short, the regulator is attempting to become more agile, more targeted, and more aligned with real-world risk.

How BAS Differs from the ACS

At first glance, BAS may appear to be a rebranded ACS. That would be a mistake.

The ACS was built as a quality assurance scheme, an optional badge of credibility. BAS is being designed as something closer to a regulatory framework in waiting.

Key differences are already emerging:

1. From Voluntary Badge to Strategic Lever

The ACS has always been optional. BAS, while initially likely to remain voluntary, is clearly being positioned as a stepping stone to something more formal. The language of “public protection” and “outcomes” reflects a regulatory mindset rather than a purely commercial one.

2. Risk-Based Assessment

Under the ACS, companies undergo periodic assessments, often three-yearly. BAS proposes a more dynamic model, focusing regulatory effort where the risk is greatest. This is a more modern approach, aligned with how other regulators operate.

3. Sector Specific Standards

The new scheme is expected to introduce enhanced requirements for specialist sectors, events, healthcare, and critical infrastructure, recognising that one-size-fits-all standards are no longer adequate.

4. Greater Emphasis on Service Delivery

There is a clear intention to shift assessment time towards how services are actually delivered, rather than purely how systems are documented.

Taken together, these changes represent a move from compliance on paper to performance in practice.

The Impact on Security Companies

For reputable operators, the direction of travel will feel familiar, perhaps even overdue. Many already operate to standards that exceed those currently required by the ACS.

However, BAS will raise the bar in several important ways.

First, it will demand greater transparency. Companies will need to demonstrate not just that they have policies, but that those policies are effective. That means better data, better reporting, and stronger governance.

Second, it will increase scrutiny on labour models. Issues such as subcontracting, use of labour providers, and employment practices will come under closer examination. For those operating on razor-thin margins, that scrutiny may prove uncomfortable.

Third, it will widen the gap between compliant and non-compliant businesses. Those already invested in quality will adapt. Those relying on minimal compliance, or worse, will find it increasingly difficult to compete in a market where clients are encouraged to look beyond price.

The Link to Mandatory Business Licensing

We cannot discuss BAS without addressing the larger question: is this a precursor to mandatory business licensing?

The honest answer is yes. At least in principle….

The SIA itself has acknowledged that any move to mandatory licensing would require government approval and legislative change. But the direction of travel is unmistakable. The development of BAS sits alongside wider consultation on business licensing, described by many as a “defining moment” for the industry.

Why does this matter?

Because mandatory licensing would fundamentally change the industry landscape. For the first time, every security business, not just individuals, would need to meet defined standards to operate legally.

That would address one of the sector’s most persistent weaknesses: the ability of poor or unethical operators to enter the market with minimal oversight.

BAS, in this context, can be seen as both a testing ground and a bridge. It allows the SIA to refine standards, develop assessment models, and build industry consensus before any legislative step is taken.

Risks and Realities

There are, of course, risks.

If BAS remains voluntary, it may struggle to achieve the scale required to drive meaningful change. The same structural limitation that affects the ACS could persist.

If it becomes mandatory, the challenge shifts to proportionality. Over-regulation could stifle smaller, legitimate businesses, particularly in a sector already under intense commercial pressure.

There is also the question of enforcement. Standards, however well designed, are only as effective as the resources and mechanisms used to enforce them.

What It Means for Clients

Clients, as ever, play a critical role.

A more robust business approval framework, whether voluntary or mandatory, will only deliver its intended benefits if buyers engage with it. Selecting providers based on verified standards rather than the lowest cost will be essential.

BAS offers the potential for a clearer, more meaningful benchmark of quality. But it will require clients to value that benchmark.

Recommended Reading: Why the Cheapest Bid Can Fund Organised Crime

Final Thoughts

The Business Approval Scheme is not just another industry initiative. It is a signal of intent, a recognition that the current model has limits, and that the future of security regulation must extend beyond the individual licence.

Whether BAS becomes a stepping stone to mandatory licensing or remains a strengthened voluntary framework, its impact will be significant.

For those who have long argued that the industry needs to move beyond minimum compliance, this is a moment of opportunity.

For those who have built their business on the margins of that compliance, it may be a moment of reckoning.

Either way, the message is clear: the days of light-touch oversight at the business level are numbered, and in a sector that exists to protect the public, that can only be a good thing.

Is Your Business Ready for What’s Coming?

Whether BAS remains voluntary or becomes mandatory, the direction is clear: standards are rising. GuardPass helps security companies stay ahead — connecting you with SIA-licensed professionals through the UK’s largest talent pool, with BS7858-compliant vetting through GuardCheck built in from the start.

See how GuardPass supports compliant security operations →

The UK security industry is in a state of flux. Many factors are driving this change. New technologies, regulatory changes, increased crime, lack of visible police presence and the perceived poor calibre of many security officers that still seem to obtain Security Industry Authority licences, all play a part in this evolution, for good or bad.

One key sector that seems to be on an upward trajectory is the alarm response and mobile security industry. The reason for this is manyfold, and involves several of the factors mentioned above, but one thing is for certain: there are some clever people leveraging groundbreaking technological advancements to provide a greatly enhanced and increasingly important physical security service. A service that was traditionally utilised by larger organisations, and a few enlightened, high cash flow private companies.

These days, however, alarm response services have become financially viable and widely available to small businesses, and even residential clients.

Let’s have a more detailed look at what has gone wrong in society and how the private security industry has conquered a range of challenges.

What Is Driving The Demand?

Crime Going Up, Consequences Going Down

As a Metropolitan Police Constable in London during the 1990’s, I remember when a uniformed officer was sent out to every call received from the public. Hard to imagine, I know. Almost every police station had a front desk open to the public 24/7, and if someone called the 999 emergency number, they would get through to a human immediately.

There would be well-trained, professional police officers, actually walking around engaging with the public, confident and physically robust enough to deal effectively with violence, aggression, and anti-social behaviour.

If a suspect was arrested for burglary, they would be in front of a Magistrate within a couple of weeks, or the next working day if bail was not appropriate. Prisons still had room to accommodate criminals, and when the punishment fitted the crime, offenders were far more likely to end up there. It wasn’t perfect, and there were still frustrations regarding sentencing, but things got done. Offenders got caught as local coppers knew the ‘scrotes’ most likely to have been responsible, and if they didn’t commit the crime, they knew who did.

So Why the Trip Down Memory Lane?

Society has changed dramatically over the last 30 years, leading to a substantial increase in crime and the perception of it. Please don’t believe politicians who quote crime figures that are based on ‘reported crime’. Who reports crime these days? Why bother when it is almost certain that the offence will not be investigated, your property will never be recovered, or the person who assaulted you will not be found.

Policing across the country is in crisis. Funding is woefully inadequate. Pay and conditions for officers are increasingly intolerable. Entry standards have plummeted, and training is simply not fit for purpose. Add to this the horrific failure of leadership to support their officers, and a constant bombardment of hate and criticism from the ‘trial by YouTube generation’, and what was a well-respected, professional vocation is a shadow of its former self, and frankly, no longer fit for purpose in any 1st world country.

So, Chummy, who has broken into your house and taken thousands of pounds of your hard-earned personal possessions away, knows that the chances that his collar is going to be felt are negligible. His chosen profession is a far less risky endeavour these days, and he or she (being a villain is an equal opportunity affliction) rapidly discovers that crime does indeed pay.

But, criminals do get caught. They make mistakes. Become blasé. Get grassed up by someone with a grievance against them, or in some cases, still get found out by the cops! Alas, in the UK, for a host of depressing reasons, punishments rarely fit the crime and Judges are under pressure, due to overcrowding in the prison population (build more prisons I hear you say) to impose non custodial sanctions on all but the most heinous offences: murder, serious sexual assault, saying nasty things on social media (I wish I was joking there). This means that even the most hardcore repeat offenders have great difficulty getting themselves banged up these days.

In a nutshell, with a far larger population and shifting demographics, policed by underfunded and collapsing law enforcement, the chances of a satisfactory outcome after reporting a crime is negligible, with many recorded positive results in fact being down to statistical reporting manipulation, rather than anyone actually being brought to justice.

If an offender does manage to get caught and arrested by the police, with the likelihood that they’ll receive any meaningful punishment being highly unlikely, there is little incentive for them to change their criminal ways. Indeed, these two factors are encouraging the lazy and feckless in society to embark on a life of crime and even encouraging foreign miscreants to come to these shores for an easier time.

Filling The Vacuum

This is all quite depressing, but what can you practically do as a homeowner or proprietor of a small business to help protect your property or ensure business continuity?

I’ve written articles on physical security measures for property protection in the past, so I won’t go over old ground here, but intruder alarm systems were always a good idea. They make a burglar nervous at the very least, and hopefully, they will leave in a hurry and without too large a haul of your property.

The big problem is that alarms go off all the time, all over the place, and normally for completely innocent reasons. We have all had that neighbour whose car alarm went off every time a lorry drove past, or the wind picked up a bit. I had a neighbour with a house alarm that went off pretty much every night when they were on holiday. They made the mistake of believing the sales chap who said the motion detectors wouldn’t be activated by household pets. That sales chap hadn’t seen their dog, clearly.

We live in a time when an audible alarm barely raises an eyebrow, and almost nobody is going to bother to call the police to report the house across the road’s intruder alarm going off. If they did, it is pretty unlikely that a police unit would ever be dispatched to investigate.

Moving Away From 24 Hour Guarding Services

Larger companies also have to deal with growing financial challenges.

In today’s economic climate, there are very few businesses that are not seeing a detrimental impact on the bottom line. Throw in some debatable calls by a Government that appears to have a dubious grasp of operational business challenges, and you have a situation where employers are looking to drastically cut costs. With increases in employers’ N.I. contributions, and additional operational expenses, guarding companies also have no choice but to quote minimum charge rates that are no longer financially viable for potential clients.

If you can’t afford continued 24/7 guarding cover at your sites, then using a combination of 3rd party security options like remote CCTV monitoring, intruder and fire alarm response services, and random mobile patrols would seem to be a reasonable cash-saving alternative.

I’ve probably taken the most convoluted route possible to get around to discussing alarm response services, but context is crucial to understanding how we got here and where we are headed.

Why Doesn’t Every House And Business Have A Monitored Alarm System?

Cost and Complexity

Traditionally, you would fit an intruder alarm system because it sounds like a good idea, but after some investigation, you decide not to pay a subscription to an alarm monitoring company. Here’s why. Upon activation, the alarm monitoring company would contact a nominated person to inform them.

Unfortunately, the alarm only goes off when you’re at your timeshare in Tenerife and your closest trusted relative lives 250 miles away in Abergavenny. Your next-door neighbours are a nice couple, but he works nights, and his good lady Wife is already of a somewhat nervous disposition.

Anyway, would you want a loved one to be first on the scene when potentially violent criminals are climbing out of your bedroom window with armloads of loot?

Perhaps not.

So you are also able to nominate a security company that has alarm response services in your area. They will charge a call-out fee every time they attend, but more awkwardly, they will need keys, alarm codes, and access instructions for your premises, which they will store securely for you, of course, for a monthly keyholding fee.

This is all starting to get expensive and a bit of a faff, so you’ll just make do with the standalone alarm system and hope that someone in earshot will assist in an activation. Or not, as we know.

Traditional Alarm Response Problems

What most companies that provide keyholding and response services don’t tell you is that a good 90% of intruder alarm activations (It’s more, but I’m going on 20 years of experience in the sector, rather than any published ‘statistics’, so I’m playing it safe) are false alarms.

There may be an innocent environmental cause like window blinds swinging in the breeze, or a poster falling off the wall in your teenager’s room, and do not get me started on Christmas decorations! Rarely will an activation be caused by criminal activity. Things can get expensive if the security company has to attend your property 12 times in a month because a motion detector is activated every time your cat has a zoomie session, or your curtain moves because a window was not closed fully.

But it is worse than that. A security company may boast of an “average response time” of 30* minutes (*amend as applicable) to an intruder alarm activation, and that is great if the officer with the keys to your property, locked safely in the back of their van, is close by when the alarm goes off. Unfortunately, sods law dictates that on the one occasion that your alarm has been triggered by a break-in, the security officer with the keys to your home or business is stuck waiting for a boarding up company to secure a site that has been broken into, 20 miles away from your property and will take 2 hours to get there.

Still, more useful than calling the police, but certainly not as you’d hope. Look for terms in the service agreement like “this is a shared service”, which will excuse big delays when you need them least. Nobody is to blame. It is frustrating for the security officer as well, and anyway, you may be lucky enough to have your keyholding officer nearby when required. Fingers crossed.

It seems like a valuable service is hampered by both cost and unreliability.

Why Does Alarm Response Work Now?

Reduced Costs

Wouldn’t it be great if the keyholding fees were removed from the cost equation? Remember when I said that over 90% of intruder alarm activations. Add to this the fact that the vast majority of intruder alarm systems auto-reset after a certain time (without needing to enter a property to reset a panel), and it would seem that, in most cases, a detailed internal patrol of the site is a waste of time.

If an external visual check of your premises can effectively detect any unlawful entry or crime, paying a company to hold a set of keys for you would seem like an unnecessary expense.

Massively Improved Response Times

If you are no longer having to rely on the one individual security officer who has your keys locked away in a safe in the back of their van to attend your alarm activations, then response times can improve exponentially.

I have seen several security companies that do not even have a dedicated security officer for your area, and rely on an officer having to return to their company HQ to sign out clients’ keys before returning to investigate an alarm. Your keys may be very safe, but your alarm response time is horrendous every time.

Times Are Changing at Last!

Here comes the technology. If your alarm monitoring service uses an advanced system to deploy the closest available security officer to your premises, then you’ll have someone investigating the activation fast. No need to wait for a particular keyholder that may be miles and miles away, or stuck dealing with another emergency. There’s also no delay while someone goes to an office to get your keys first.

At the end of the day, most end clients will prioritise speed of security’s arrival and cost of service over everything else.

Security On Demand

These new ‘security on demand’ services are made possible by clever new technologies. Using cutting-edge AI, systems can be integrated with alarm monitoring centres’ existing software, so that the moment an alarm is received, tech wizardry locates the nearest available security officer and instantly sends them all the information they require to investigate.

If there is any problem with the first choice response unit, the next nearest will be automatically deployed. Speed is greatly increased by removing the human element from the dispatch process, as control rooms can be very busy places, and the time between an alarm arriving at the monitoring centre and a phone call to a response officer, or a security response company’s control room, can vary significantly.

As with so many things these days, the security officer has a smartphone app that uses the technology of the phone to provide real-time GPS location data and provides a clear and simple form for completion when the activation is investigated. This allows the attachment of photos and provides all the site and contact information required to effectively deal with the alarm.

If a breach or criminality has been found, the officer will have clear instructions on escalation procedures and how to proceed. This may involve contacting pre-selected individuals and following their guidance, or even calling a nominated boarding up company to secure the site.

In some unavoidable instances, the site will still need to be entered, or access to certain high-risk areas may be required. In these cases, when more than a simple external check is needed, improvements in external secure safe technologies mean that keys, access cards and any alarm fobs can be accessed and resecured after use.

In such cases, there will be full and clear instructions on the alarm activation alert, sent to the security officer.

Recommended Reading: Top 10 Characteristics of a Good Security Officer

Don’t Just Take My Word For It!

I placed a post on business network LinkedIn, about this subject, and had this response from Ant Hebblethwaite, Sales Director at the Doncaster Security Operations Centre (DSOC):

“We have seen firsthand how pressures are reshaping the demand for private alarm response and remote monitoring services. Rising insurance requirements, organised criminality, and tighter operational budgets are pushing businesses to look for smarter, more cost-effective protection models rather than traditional static guarding.

Technology is playing a significant role in widening access. The evolution of AI video analytics, verified alarm response, and standards such as BS EN 50518 has allowed high-level remote monitoring to become both more reliable and more commercially viable for a broader range of sectors.

When deployed correctly, these technologies don’t just reduce cost, they improve outcomes, speed of intervention, and evidential quality.”

What Does This Mean For Alarm Response?

The desire for rapid, efficient, low-cost intruder response services has never been greater.

A perfect storm of increased crime, more brazen criminals, and a lack of risk or repercussions for their actions mean that burglary, sometimes by violent career criminals or organised criminal gangs, is reaching epidemic levels. All conspiring to make alarm response services more important than ever.

Now, at last, technology is driving costs down, speeding up response times, and making alarm response services a viable financial and operational proposition for a broad range of new potential customers.

I will leave the final word with the UK’s leading experts in the field of high-tech alarm response solutions, AURA:

“…We’re seeing a significant “response gap” as police resources are redirected toward high-harm crimes, leaving property and low-level incidents with longer wait times.

The value here isn’t just in ‘private police,’ but in guaranteed outcomes. By using technology to connect ARCs (alarm receiving centres) directly to a distributed network of vetted SIA responders, we’re ensuring that ‘out of reach’ shouldn’t mean ‘out of luck’ for smaller businesses and Residents’ Associations. It’s about professionalising the response when the public sector simply can’t be everywhere at once.”

Very well said

Build Your Response Team With The UK’s #1 Security Platform

Whether you’re scaling alarm response operations or building a mobile patrol division, the right officers make all the difference. GuardPass connects you with the UK’s largest pool of SIA-licensed professionals, all pre-verified and ready to deploy. Combine that with BS7858-compliant vetting through GuardCheck, and you’ve got a recruitment process as fast as the response times your clients expect.

Find response officers with GuardPass.

Let’s face it. A lot of the time, it seems that the end users of security guarding services view it as an annoying expense. Many times, you will hear it said that the only reason companies use security personnel is to satisfy the requirements of insurance policies. This perceived attitude explains the desire of so many clients to pay as little as possible for their guard force; after all, they add nothing to the bottom line and seem to do very little.

Frankly, this sentiment is driven by ignorance and is prevalent in organisations that simply do not understand the purpose and role of security officers. Yes, the uniformed chap in the lobby isn’t selling the client’s services, and the woman patrolling the site at night isn’t promoting the customer’s products to any potential buyers. This completely misses the point, though.

Security is no less than an essential business enabler, without which client’s businesses would be seriously degraded and possibly may not be able to operate at all.

Reputational Enhancement

Having smart, professional, helpful security officers in your office reception conveys an air of safety and welcome to new visitors and guests and provides a reassuring presence for staff. Nothing makes a better impression than polite and well presented security personnel offering assistance to those who have no former experience of your company. Visible security at your building’s access points makes a statement. It says that you care about your employees and visitors, and these officers are your ambassadors, the introduction to, and public face of, your company.

The first impression that people will form of your business is directly related to the professionalism and attitude of your security team and the way they interact with guests, visitors, and the general public.

Recommended reading: 10 Characteristics of a Security Officer

Crime Prevention

During your organisation’s normal business hours, the primary role of the physical security team is usually access control. Having a uniformed presence in the lobby or reception area, checking IDs, assisting staff and directing visitors to reception or issuing passes immediately prevents unauthorised access to your sites.

Good security will challenge individuals who are unexpected, or who do not appear to have a valid reason to enter the site, and will summon a supervisor or client representative to authorise or deny access if required. This is a huge deterrent to criminals.

Out of hours, having security on site protecting your premises, perhaps monitoring CCTV and performing regular site patrols, both deters crime and provides rapid detection and reporting of criminal activity. The more diligent your security officers are, the less likely any loss or damage to your company’s property becomes.

Counter Terrorism

With the imminent introduction of Martyn’s Law – the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025 – security officers play a more vital role in the disruption of terrorist activity than ever.

Those smart, professional security officers in your reception area, or patrolling the exterior of your buildings, are massively effective at disrupting the hostile reconnaissance operations of those planning terrorist acts. A terrorist will want to spend time researching potential targets, which may include your company’s large HQ building or large, busy sites nearby. This research can be easily cut short by a security officer politely challenging the suspect and asking if he or she can help them.

Your average terrorist does not want attention drawn to them and will want to take photos or make notes, uninterrupted. Knowing that security is highly active, vigilant and willing to engage with members of the public, is not an atmosphere conducive to the planning of a successful attack.

Terrorists need to plan, and fear detection, so if your security officers are proactive and highly visible, it is far easier for them to move on to plan B. If your security has suspicions regarding the behaviour of anyone, then a full description of the person/s concerned can be made, CCTV alerted, and a record of the suspicious behaviour can be documented, and this information can be shared with security colleagues within your company and across any relevant local business intelligence networks.

Your security team will also know what to do if a bomb threat is received, and will be key in emergency situations where site evacuation (or invacuation) is required. They will be able to pass information, clearly and concisely, to the emergency services and can liaise with them on arrival, as well as provide help and direction to your staff and visitors.

Loss Prevention

Another key role of security is the detection of crime and, where applicable, the detention and processing of suspects and recovery of property.

This goes far beyond the usual retail site security officers and store detectives, who work together to detect, disrupt, detain, and ban or prosecute thieves.

Hotels, factories, warehouses, bars/clubs, and numerous types of premises operate random staff bag or locker searches. This often identifies and helps eliminate insider theft problems.

Active CCTV monitoring is also highly effective at detecting suspicious behaviour that evolves into arrestable offences. Having the police arrive on site to catch a burglar breaking into a building, or a graffiti-spraying yob in the act, is highly satisfying and saves huge amounts of money for clients. Highly trained and observant security personnel prove massively successful at spotting company property “walking out the back door”, and have caught many workers loading stolen property into vehicles or removing items via fire exits and other covert routes.

Health & Safety

The responsibilities of all organisations, under Health & Safety legislation, are many and varied. Having security officers patrolling your buildings on a regular basis ensures that your company is fully compliant.

Checking that fire escape routes are clear of obstructions, fire doors operate correctly, trip hazards are removed, fire fighting equipment is present and serviceable, first aid kits are present and contents are sealed and in date, accident books are correctly filled out, any incidents are fully and accurately reported, fire alarms are tested regularly, and emergency training for day and night staff takes place at the required intervals is all well within the remit of your security team.

Your security team is also trained in first aid and can provide rapid assistance to any staff member or visitor to your site who requires pre-hospital care.

Some security officers have more specialised FREC 3 or D13, advanced trauma care training and will be competent to deal with more severe, life-threatening situations. This training comes into its own in the event of a nearby terrorist situation when police have activated “Operation Plato” and have locked down the area, allowing nobody in or out until a full assessment of the situation has been made.

Ambulances or medical staff will not be able to enter the area, and anyone who has been injured will only be able to receive treatment from those already within the sealed-off zone. This may well be these trained security officers.

Business Continuity & Disaster Management

When things go wrong, people turn to security officers for help and guidance. There will also be procedures in place to ensure that a variety of emergency situations are dealt with effectively, with the best possible outcomes for the client.

Security management/officers will also work with a client’s leadership team to formulate procedures to ensure that disruption to normal business operations is kept to a minimum in a variety of disaster or emergency situations. This continuity of business may involve regular data backup, remote off-site operational facilities, or home working systems. In any disaster situation, security will be at the forefront of information management, maintaining effective communications, and assisting in any transition procedures.

So, Who Needs Security Staff?

Thinking that security is just the uniformed men and women who stand in your lobby and say hello to visitors is horrendously naive. Yet many still do.

You don’t need security if:

• Your corporate reputation is unimportant.
• You don’t need to comply with Health & Safety, Terrorism, or Fire Precautions laws.
• Nobody steals your company property.
• Nobody damages your company’s property or premises.
• No unauthorised person/s can enter your sites.
• Guests and visitors can be dealt with remotely.
• Unexpected emergencies or disasters can’t happen to your company.
• Nobody has an accident on or near your premises.
• The safety of staff and visitors is not important.

Spoiler alert. You DO need security.

In almost all cases, the absence of professional security staff would make company operations unsafe, illegal, destructive and very, very unwise. Security simply enables you to safely and legally do what you do.

Instead of looking at the money that they do not bring in to your company, look long and hard at the financial loss and damage that would occur without them.

Security Enables Everything Else

The businesses that understand security’s true value don’t view it as a cost centre – they see it for what it is: the foundation that allows everything else to happen safely, legally and professionally. Whether you’re building an in-house team or scaling a guarding operation, the difference starts with the people you hire and how you prepare them.

GuardPass helps security companies and end users find, vet and develop the professional officers described throughout this article. From access to the UK’s largest pool of SIA-licensed candidates through GuardHire, to BS7858 vetting through GuardCheck and CPD training via GuardSkills, we support every stage of the officer lifecycle.

Book a demo to see how GuardPass can help you build the professional security team your business depends on.