PSBD Security Guard Exam common mistakes
PSBD Security Guard Exam · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Writing incident reports that mix opinion, assumption and fact in the same sentence (e.g. "the man was obviously drunk and aggressive"), so the report cannot be relied on later.
Candidates write the way they speak, compressing observations and conclusions into one statement, and they assume the reader shares their interpretation.
What to do instead
Before writing, split the account into three columns on scrap paper: what I saw/heard (senses), what I did, what I was told. Write only column-one material as fact, attribute hearsay ("the cleaner stated..."), and keep conclusions out of the narrative entirely.
Describing a person by a single characteristic or by opinion ("a suspicious youth", "an Asian male") instead of a full head-to-toe description with build, height, clothing, distinguishing features and direction of travel.
Under time pressure candidates grab the most obvious label and stop, not realising a description built on one trait is useless to police or colleagues.
What to do instead
Memorise and rehearse a fixed observation order (sex, age, height, build, hair, complexion, clothing top to bottom, features, footwear, direction, time). Practise it on strangers in everyday life until it is automatic.
Using force to resolve a situation (grabbing, pushing, restraining) before considering whether disengagement, positioning, or calling for assistance would achieve the same lawful objective.
Candidates picture the job as physical and equate decisive action with force; they also underestimate how quickly a well-intentioned restraint becomes an assault or a health-and-safety failure.
What to do instead
Learn the decision sequence as a checklist - can I avoid, can I leave, can I talk, can I summon help, and only then the minimum force for the shortest time to prevent harm - and be able to state which step you were on when force was used.
Treating the guard's powers as police powers: detaining someone for questioning, searching bags or persons as a matter of right, or using force to recover property.
Popular culture and the visible authority of the uniform blur the line between a private citizen's limited powers and those of a constable; candidates answer from instinct rather than law.
What to do instead
Build a one-page 'what I can and cannot do' sheet from the relevant legislation and drill it: lawful grounds for detention, consent-based search, when police must be called, and what to do the moment a person refuses to remain.
Failing to distinguish a genuine emergency from a routine event, and either over-reacting (evacuating for a small kitchen fire already extinguished) or under-reacting (delaying the alarm while investigating a smell of burning).
Candidates have not rehearsed the trigger points for each alarm type, so they default to either panic or hesitation under stress.
What to do instead
Learn the site's defined trigger conditions for fire, bomb threat, medical and intruder responses, and the rule that life safety precedes property protection - raise the alarm first, investigate second.
Blocking a fire exit, wedging a fire door open, or obstructing extinguishers and hose reels because it is convenient for access or ventilation.
Candidates see fire equipment as static background rather than active safety systems, and treat 'keep the door open' as a courtesy to staff.
What to do instead
Learn the reasons behind each rule (smoke spread, escape route capacity, equipment access) and treat every patrol check of exits, doors and extinguishers as a scored task with a fixed checklist, not a glance.
Letting people through an access point on familiarity, appearance or a friendly story ('I've forgotten my pass, I'm always in here') without verifying identity and authorisation.
Candidates want to be helpful and fear appearing rude or obstructive; they confuse good customer service with waiving procedure.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed script that pairs courtesy with verification ('Certainly - may I take your name and who you're visiting so I can log you in?'), and treat every entry, including staff, as requiring the same check. Practise the script aloud until it is comfortable.
Patrolling by walking the same route in the same order at the same time, looking only ahead at eye level, and not recording the patrol properly.
Candidates treat patrol as a walk rather than a security function, and repetitive routine feels efficient while actually creating predictable gaps for intruders and missed hazards.
What to do instead
Vary route, direction and timing within the site's requirements; use deliberate observation points including above and below eye level, behind doors and in blind spots; and complete the patrol record at each checkpoint, not retrospectively at the end of the shift.
Escalating a minor customer dispute through argument, sarcasm or a raised voice, or conversely going silent and walking away without explanation.
Candidates take rudeness personally and respond emotionally, or have no de-escalation technique beyond 'calm down', which usually inflames the situation.
What to do instead
Learn and rehearse a small set of de-escalation moves - lower and slow the voice, acknowledge the person's frustration, offer a concrete next step, and state boundaries calmly - plus a scripted handover to a supervisor when the exchange stops being productive.
Failing to report or record a near miss, minor injury or small security breach because 'nothing happened' or because it would reflect badly on the guard or a colleague.
Candidates judge reportability by outcome rather than by risk, and fear blame; they do not realise that near-miss data is the main tool for preventing the serious incident.
What to do instead
Learn the principle that any event with potential for harm or loss is reportable regardless of outcome, and the reporting chain and timescales. Treat reporting as a duty owed to the site, not a confession, and report through the proper channel rather than informally to a colleague.