Cheap Building Security: What Goes Wrong for RMC Boards

Abdi Kani Mohammed

Priority First Team

September 23, 2026

•

10 min

Last updated: 23 September 2026

Cheap building security providers commonly expose RMC (Residents' Management Company) boards to unlicensed guarding, service charge disputes and personal director liability. Under the Building Safety Act 2022, Accountable Persons face prosecution carrying up to two years' imprisonment for compliance failures, per Edwin Coe LLP — a risk that low-cost contracts routinely underestimate.

Key Takeaways

Deploying unlicensed security staff carries a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine, according to Vigilance Security Magazine / SIA.
Costs arising from an Accountable Person's negligence or breach of contract cannot be recovered through the service charge, under section 20F of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, per Cornerstone Barristers.
Security guard turnover in low-cost operations can reach 100% to 400% annually, compared with a 41% average across all industries, according to Belfry Software.
The SIA revoked or suspended over 1,200 licences in 2023 for compliance issues including improper licence display, per DCS Group, citing Get Licensed.
Priority First's own platform has logged over 4,900 photo-backed patrols across 24 sites as of August 2026, showing what verifiable, accountable guarding looks like in practice.

What Legal Duties Do RMC Boards Have Around Building Security?

An RMC board is the group of resident-elected directors responsible for managing a residential block on behalf of leaseholders, and it carries statutory duties that extend directly to security arrangements. Priority First notes that, under the Building Safety Act 2022, higher-risk buildings must have a named Accountable Person (AP) or Principal Accountable Person (PAP) — the individual or organisation legally responsible for managing building safety risks, including access control and security measures that prevent unauthorised entry.

Failing to meet these duties is not a paperwork issue. APs and PAPs who fail to comply with their duties under the Building Safety Act 2022 may face prosecution resulting in a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, according to Edwin Coe LLP.

Priority First also points to general duties RMC boards carry under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, which requires those managing premises to ensure the safety of residents, staff and visitors. Delegating security to a contractor does not remove this duty — it simply changes who is executing it, not who is accountable for the outcome.

What Hidden Costs Emerge After Hiring a Cheap Building Security Provider?

Hidden costs from a cheap security contract typically surface within months of signing, once corners cut at the tender stage start producing real-world consequences. A low headline day rate often excludes supervision, training refreshers, uniform replacement, radio equipment and cover for sickness or annual leave — costs that then arrive as variations or emergency call-outs.

Re-tendering costs compound the problem. Boards that switch providers every 12–18 months because service quality collapses lose institutional knowledge of the site — access codes, resident preferences, known trouble spots — every single time.

There is also a service charge trap. Costs incurred by reason of negligence, breach of contract or unlawful act on the part of the Accountable Person, or someone acting on their behalf, are expressly excluded from being recoverable via service charge under section 20F of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, according to Cornerstone Barristers. If a cheap contractor's failure causes loss, leaseholders cannot simply be billed for the fallout — the board may have to absorb it directly.

How Do Under-Qualified Security Staff Put Residents and Property at Risk?

Under-qualified security staff put residents at risk primarily through inconsistent vetting, inadequate training and extremely high staff turnover, which erodes site knowledge and response quality. High turnover means a resident rarely sees the same face twice, and a guard unfamiliar with fire evacuation routes, key safes or lift override procedures cannot respond effectively in an emergency.

Security guard turnover can range from 100% to 400% annually, compared to an average employee turnover rate of 41% across all industries, per Belfry Software. A separate analysis found annual turnover in the security industry hit 50.8% in one year, against 38.4% for the overall workforce, with some regional sectors reaching 77%, according to GuardOwl.

This churn is the single most under-priced cost in a cheap contract. Priority First's onboarding data illustrates the alternative: when three new buildings — including a 10-checkpoint serviced residence in Central London — were added in July 2026, checkpoint mapping, officer induction and photographed patrols were live within days, not the weeks of "bedding in" typically associated with new guarding contracts.

What Licensing and Accreditation Should a Legitimate Security Provider Hold?

A legitimate security provider must ensure every guard deployed on a UK site holds a valid licence from the Security Industry Authority (SIA) — the body that regulates the private security industry under the Private Security Industry Act 2001. This licence confirms identity checks, criminal record vetting and mandatory training have been completed before an individual sets foot on site.

The penalties for skipping this step are severe and apply to both the individual and the company. The maximum penalty for working without an SIA licence is six months' imprisonment and/or a fine of £5,000; deploying unlicensed staff carries a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine, per Vigilance Security Magazine / SIA.

Real prosecutions show this is enforced, not theoretical. A security operative was fined £922 plus £680 court costs and a £92 victim surcharge after an SIA investigation found unlicensed guards working at a venue, according to FSM Magazine. As SIA Criminal Investigations Manager Jenny Hart put it: "The sentencing of these two operatives is yet another reminder of the damage working without a valid licence can cause individuals and their companies." Boards should ask to see live SIA licence numbers, not just a general assurance of compliance, and can verify them via the SIA's own registers.

How Does Inadequate Staff Training Affect Incident Response?

Inadequate training directly slows incident response, because a guard who has not rehearsed emergency procedures hesitates at the exact moment speed matters most. Response quality depends on familiarity with the specific building — evacuation routes, plant room locations, alarm panel resets, key holding protocols — none of which a poorly briefed agency guard can be expected to know on their first shift.

"Blocks tend to buy security and building management as separate contracts, and the gaps between the two are exactly where problems live. The concierge who notices a leak, the patrol officer who spots a failed door closer — when one team owns the whole building, nothing falls between contracts," says Mo Hassan, Managing Director at Priority First.

This is precisely why photographed, provable patrols matter more than a signed occurrence book. Across a 24-site portfolio, Priority First's field officers have logged over 4,900 photo-backed patrols, with alarm activations recorded in the field alongside cause, actions taken and photographic evidence — a standard that turns response into a documented, auditable process rather than a guard's unverifiable word.

What Insurance and Liability Gaps Arise From a Cheap Provider's Failures?

Insurance and liability gaps open up whenever a cheap provider's contract fails to meet the safety standard the building's own insurer assumed was in place. Buildings insurance policies for residential blocks frequently specify minimum security measures — such as manned guarding hours, CCTV coverage or alarm response times — as a condition of cover, and a provider that quietly reduces cover to save cost can invalidate that condition without the board realising.

If an incident occurs and the insurer discovers the contracted security standard was not actually delivered, a claim can be reduced or refused entirely. The RMC board is then left facing the loss directly, since section 20F of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 blocks recovery of costs caused by the Accountable Person's own negligence or breach of contract via the service charge, per Cornerstone Barristers.

Vicarious liability compounds this: a court can hold the RMC responsible for a contractor's negligent act carried out on the board's behalf, even where the contractor was engaged specifically to reduce risk.

RMC board members are volunteer directors, and directorship carries personal legal exposure that does not disappear because the role is unpaid. Where a board can be shown to have selected a provider negligently — ignoring missing SIA licences, unrealistic pricing, or an absence of references — directors can face claims for breach of duty alongside the company itself.

This is precisely why Directors' and Officers' (D&O) insurance exists for RMCs, and why many governance advisers recommend boards document their procurement decisions carefully. A board that can show it compared providers on qualifications, not just price, is in a materially stronger position if a security failure is later challenged in court or at a tribunal such as the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).

Cutting corners to save the service charge a few hundred pounds a year rarely looks defensible after an incident — particularly set against the criminal penalties already outlined for licensing failures.

Cheap vs Qualified Security Provider: A Direct Comparison

The trade-off between cost and compliance is rarely obvious at tender stage, which is exactly when it needs to be visible.

Factor	Cheap/unvetted provider	Qualified, accountable provider
SIA licensing	Unverified or informally checked	Every officer's licence confirmed before deployment
Staff turnover	Consistent with industry range of 100–400% annually (Belfry Software)	Site continuity prioritised through induction and retention
Patrol evidence	Paper occurrence book, unprovable	Photo-backed patrols with GPS and timestamp
Insurance alignment	May fall short of policy conditions	Contracted cover matches insurer requirements
Service charge risk	Failures may be irrecoverable under s.20F LTA 1985	Fewer failures to recover from in the first place
Onboarding time	Weeks of "bedding in"	Days, per Priority First's July 2026 onboarding data

Your RMC Security Provider Checklist

Confirm every guard's SIA licence number and verify it independently, not just on the provider's word.
Ask the provider to name the people who will actually deliver the contract, not just describe the service in general terms.
Request evidence of how cover is maintained during sickness, no-shows and emergencies.
Check the day rate against known industry ranges — pricing far below market usually means something has been cut.
Ask whether patrols are photo-logged and auditable, or recorded only in a paper occurrence book.
Review the contract against your buildings insurance policy's stated security conditions.
Document the board's comparison process in meeting minutes, in case procurement decisions are later challenged.
Check references from comparable residential blocks, ideally of a similar size and risk profile.

FAQ

What goes wrong when RMC boards choose a cheap building security provider?

RMC boards that choose a cheap building security provider commonly face unlicensed or poorly vetted guards, high staff turnover, weak incident response and hidden costs that surface after signing. These failures can breach Building Safety Act 2022 duties and expose both the RMC and its directors to legal and financial liability.

Can RMC directors be held personally liable for a security contractor's negligence?

Yes, RMC directors can face personal liability if a board is shown to have selected or overseen a security provider negligently. This is why many RMCs carry Directors' and Officers' insurance and document their procurement decisions carefully.

Are cheap security costs recoverable through service charges under the Building Safety Act 2022?

No, not always. Costs caused by the Accountable Person's own negligence, breach of contract or unlawful act are expressly excluded from recovery via service charge under section 20F of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, per Cornerstone Barristers.

What happens if a security incident occurs and the guard involved was unlicensed?

Deploying an unlicensed guard is a criminal offence carrying a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine for the deploying company, according to Vigilance Security Magazine / SIA. Real cases have also seen individual operatives fined and given costs orders, per FSM Magazine.

How does high security guard turnover affect building safety?

High turnover means guards rarely build familiarity with a specific site's layout, residents and risks, which slows response times and weakens continuity. Industry turnover figures of 100–400% annually, reported by Belfry Software, are far above the 41% average across all industries.

What questions should an RMC board ask when comparing security providers?

Boards should ask for verified SIA licence numbers, named delivery staff, evidence of patrol logging, cover arrangements for absence, and transparent pricing that shows officer pay within the quoted rate.

How can RMC boards balance cost control with resident safety?

Boards should compare providers on qualifications, licensing, training and evidence standards first, then negotiate price within that shortlist — not the other way round. Building in an audit or risk assessment before tendering, such as Priority First's Building Security Audit self-assessment, helps boards define genuine requirements before price becomes the deciding factor.

Securing Your Building With Priority First

Priority First works directly with RMC boards and managing agents to close the exact gaps a cheap provider leaves open — verified SIA-licensed officers, photo-backed patrols and full accountability for both security and the wider building. Rather than treating security and facilities management as separate contracts with gaps between them, Priority First delivers both under one accountable partner, so nothing falls through the cracks between a concierge, a patrol officer and a maintenance issue.

Priority First's own operational data shows what accountable guarding looks like at scale: 24 sites run on a single platform with more than 4,900 photo-backed patrols logged, each carrying officer ID, GPS location and a timestamp, as of August 2026. Across prime central London — including Chelsea, Knightsbridge and Mayfair — as well as West London and further sites nationwide, this evidence standard means missed checkpoints show up as gaps in the record rather than passing silently.

If your board is reviewing its current security arrangements or preparing to re-tender, get in touch with Priority First's Physical Protection / Manned Guarding team for a site audit and a transparent quote.

Explore Priority First services

Facilities Management Corporate Security Manned Guarding