CCTV in Education Establishments

L

larpy

Longterm Registered User
Currently conducting a security review within a Higher Education establishment.
The security team is in house, the campus is split site and there is wide use of CCTV.
The college is goverment grant maintained, to improve income the college has a number of cafés, a restaurant and future plans for small community shops to be built on campus and all staffed by students. Members of the general public come onto campus and use the facilities as and when they want to and these areas are monitored by CCTV.
Would the in house security team require to be CCTV badged as they all use the system and are monitoring members of the public or is it the case that members of the public are 'invited' in by the college and therefore are on the colleges property as guests so to speak.

Thanks in advance.

Sent from my GT-N7105 using Close Protection World mobile app
 
It doesn't matter on what basis the public are there. If the security team is employed directly by the college and not by a security company, they do not need a CCTV or SG licence. If there was a licensed (alcohol) bar/cafe and it had manned security they would need a DS licence as DS don't get an in-house exemption from licensing but they still wouldn't need a CCTV licence.
 
Thanks for that, confirms what I thought.
In regards to the restaurant it is licensed to sell alcohol and is open weekdays, weekends and evenings. The in house team could potentially be used if there was an issue in the restaurant during the weekdays up until 21:00hrs, how ever there is no security cover at the weekend. Would this mean that a DS licence is required?

Sent from my GT-N7105 using Close Protection World mobile app
 
larpy said:
Thanks for that, confirms what I thought.
In regards to the restaurant it is licensed to sell alcohol and is open weekdays, weekends and evenings. The in house team could potentially be used if there was an issue in the restaurant during the weekdays up until 21:00hrs, how ever there is no security cover at the weekend. Would this mean that a DS licence is required?

Sent from my GT-N7105 using Close Protection World mobile app
Click to expand...
That is an awkward one!
If its written into their job description that they provide security for the restaurant then a DS licence is needed. However, it gets more complicated than that, as their employers also need a non-front line licence. That means the person who manages them needs a licence and the college equivalent of "Company Directors" also need a non-front line licence. (I have an image of some ancient maths professor in cap and gown who never ventures outside the college grounds having to apply for his SIA licence because he's Dean of the college.)
However, if it wasn't part of their job to do it and they happened to respond on the odd occasion there was trouble then they wouldn't need a licence. This would be just the same as a landlord or barmaid throwing someone out on a Tuesday night because there's no door staff around. Whether you can get away with that rather depends on how much trouble there is and the attitudes of your local police and council, or if you've a lesser spotted SIA inspector in the area (I have still yet to actually encounter one of there but I am assured they do exist.) You might also ask yourself how many hotels have their own security staff that aren't licensed and how many hotel owners, managers and directors have a non-front line licence, it is a big area that the SIA seem to ignore.
 
Apart from the in house side of things Section 4 of the PSIA allows the Secretary of State to exempt certain persons from licensing and it may well be the case with the HEE as their training or vetting may well surpass those of the SIA.

Even without an exemption the SIA defines licensed premises differently to other statutes and therefore not all places that sell alcohol need to use DS badged personnel for security. However even with that exemption from the SIA some local authorities and the Police make it a condition of licensing that DS badged personel are used.
Definition of 'Licensed Premises'
 
Guys, Thank you very much for your input very much appreciated, LW your not that far out with your image.
I will update later today.

Sent from my GT-N7105 using Close Protection World mobile app
 
Coming back to the CCTV monitoring issue, if any of the shops or restaurants are operated by separate legal entity (ie charity, community organisation or commercial operation), the school is in effect providing a service to a third party, so even if the CCTV operators are in house (ie employed by the school), they will each need to be SIA licensed.

If this is the case the school itself (as a legal entity) will need to hold a SIA business licence from 6th April 2015 in addition to the above, .

Ilkie
 
Ilk,
Disagree entirely.
Unless the shops were charged rent by the college and also Charged £x for "provision of security staff" then there is no need for licensing to be involved.
In house guards monitoring CCTV which is on private land (i.e. NOT for Public Space Surveillance) do NOT require to be licensed.

Also, with regard to the licensed premises within the college, unless the Security Staff were acting in the capacity of a door supervisor under the meaning of the Act, then there is NO requirement for Licensing. (It is unlikely that they would be acting as DS)

Having provided security for educational establishments personally, what I found happened is: University (or College in this case) employs their own guards (non - licensed). If there is a special event, or a busy saturday night in one of the bars on site, then that bar hires in an external company to provide door staff.

Bubba
 
The shops are being built by the college and run by the students so all in house so to speak, the same goes for the restaurant and cafés. The issue around the selling of alcohol in the restaurant is resolved as they are exempt.

Sent from my GT-N7105 using Close Protection World mobile app
 
Bubba said:
Ilk,
Disagree entirely.
Unless the shops were charged rent by the college and also Charged £x for "provision of security staff" then there is no need for licensing to be involved.
In house guards monitoring CCTV which is on private land (i.e. NOT for Public Space Surveillance) do NOT require to be licensed.

Also, with regard to the licensed premises within the college, unless the Security Staff were acting in the capacity of a door supervisor under the meaning of the Act, then there is NO requirement for Licensing. (It is unlikely that they would be acting as DS)

Having provided security for educational establishments personally, what I found happened is: University (or College in this case) employs their own guards (non - licensed). If there is a special event, or a busy saturday night in one of the bars on site, then that bar hires in an external company to provide door staff.

Bubba
Click to expand...

Hi Bubba,

I think we are cross purposes here.

I would agree that if the operators using CCTV to monitor activities in the school are in house there is no requirement to licience.

If the shops are run by the school this is also OK.

However as I mentioned, if the shops where given over to a separate legal entity to operate, the full weight of the licencing regime kicks in.

The question of private land does not apply when licencing applies as this has no relevance as far as the regulations are concerned as public space surveillance includes private land.

The issue of money changing hands (in terms of rent or for service provision) also does not apply, only the fact that the service is provided by a separate legal body (which in this case it is not, as indicated by Larpy later in the conversation).

I cannot comment about the DS side of things as this is an area I do not have knowledge about.

However, after reviewing a large number of education establishments' CCTV provision, I have yet to find even one that fully compiles with CCTV regulations.

This Government has stated that it is their intention to bring CCTV in education establishments into scope of the new Code of Practice resulting from the Protection of Freedoms Act in 2014 which will bring on the pain.

Ilkie
 
Last edited:
Thanks Ilk for that.
In a survey, I would act based upon what I described earlier. I would go on to defend it as being entirely correct.
I totally see your point as well though, and in a similar vein to your knowledge of DS, I would have to bow out and bow down to what you are saying.

Apologies to anyone if I have clouded the issue. If nothing else, we have identified that it is an entirely grey area.

Bubba
 
Back
Top