Shropshire firm says cutting security corners could see businesses come a cropper
Businesses across Shropshire are being urged not to use the challenging economic climate as an excuse to try and deal with on-site security in-house in order to cut costs.
With statistics showing that a burglary is committed in the UK approximately every 40 seconds, Shrewsbury security specialist Taybar Ltd has warned firms that appointing members of staff as official keyholders to deal with issues such as a break-in isn’t as cost-effective a solution as it appears to be, whilst also throwing up a series of important legal, health and safety, and insurance concerns.
“Especially in tough economic times, many businesses feel the most cost-effective way of managing security is to appoint specific staff to carry keys and be the main point of contact if there are any incidents that need responding to, however, for many companies this simply isn’t the case,” Steve Taylor, Managing Director of Taybar Ltd, commented.
“Businesses have a legal duty to look after their staff, and if the worst was ever to happen when a member of the team responds to a break-in, management can be held accountable under legislation such as the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007. Similarly, there are health and safety regulations covering lone workers and staff working outside of their normal employment hours to take into consideration, with heavy fines and other penalties for non-compliance.
“However, it’s not a case of just adhering to legal requirements – employers also have a moral duty of care. Over half of burglaries and break-ins take place at night, and having a lone employee responding to such an incident late at night can put them in a hugely stressful – and potentially dangerous – situation. It’s also been known for keyholders, especially those that live alone, to respond to an alarm without telling anyone else, then encountering difficulties or having an accident such as slipping on icy or wet surfaces, with no-one realising they actually might need help.”
Even seemingly mundane occurrences that require a response, such as a member of staff simply being locked out, can have significant consequences, Steve warns.
“There’s no crystal ball that can help a business predict when an incident is going to occur. Giving an employee responsibility for keyholding can cause problems with potential – and very much unintentional – drink-driving offences. There could be an occasion where they have to respond to an alarm at a weekend or in the early hours after a night out, and they might be tempted to, or even without thinking straight, get behind the wheel whilst still under the influence of alcohol, which of course, could have huge, perhaps life-changing, implications.”
Other situations where individuals taking on keyholding responsibilities can cause issues include: the extra cost of paying staff to be ‘on call’ or available ‘out of hours’; keyholders going on holiday with keys and alarm codes, leaving businesses unable to respond to an incident; and the knock to productivity when a senior member of staff has to respond to an alarm in the early hours, then attend an important meeting or carry out a vital task following an interrupted night’s sleep.
“Outsourcing keyholding responsibilities to external specialists gives business owners peace of mind that their property is being looked after by a team of professionals with the training, expertise, and resources to respond to any challenge or situation, 24/7, 365 days a year. External security firms can also take a proactive approach to general security issues, such as carrying out regular site patrols during out of hours, inspections and reviews, minimising the risk of a break-in or incident ever taking place,” Steve concluded.
