The expired certificate and the new contract
A small security provider in Polokwane has held PSIRA registration for six years and employs 14 security officers. In March the owner signs a new guarding contract with a shopping centre that requires 9 officers on site from 1 May. On 20 April the administration clerk discovers that the company's registration certificate expired on 31 March and that renewal was never submitted. The owner instructs the clerk to submit the renewal immediately and tells the operations manager to deploy the 9 officers on 1 May regardless, saying 'the certificate is just a piece of paper and we have always been compliant'. Two of the 9 officers to be deployed also have lapsed individual registration certificates. The clerk is unsure what she may lawfully do and asks you for guidance.
1. Identify the registration problems in this scenario and explain the legal position of the owner, the company and the two officers.
Read the worked answer
Three separate registration issues exist:
- Company registration lapsed on 31 March. A security service provider may not render security services without a valid registration. Trading on an expired certificate is not a technicality - it is providing security services while unregistered, which exposes the company and its directors to prosecution and to refusal or delay of the renewal.
- The two officers with lapsed individual certificates may not be deployed as security officers. Registration attaches to the individual; an expired certificate means the person is not lawfully registered, regardless of the company's status.
- The owner's instruction to deploy on 1 May is an instruction to commit an offence. The clerk and operations manager cannot rely on 'we have always been compliant' as a defence.
The correct course is: submit the renewal with the prescribed fee and supporting documents immediately, do not deploy any officer - including the two with lapsed certificates - until valid registration is confirmed, and inform the client that the 1 May start date cannot be met lawfully unless registration is reinstated in time. The clerk should document the owner's instruction in writing and escalate it, because following it would make her a party to unlawful conduct.
2. The owner argues that because renewal was submitted before the client contract began, the company was 'substantially compliant'. Assess this argument.
Read the worked answer
'Substantial compliance' is not a recognised defence to operating without registration. The relevant question is whether a valid certificate was in force at the time the service was rendered, not whether an application was pending.
- An application for renewal does not automatically extend the expired certificate unless the regulator expressly provides for continuation, and the owner cannot assume that it does.
- The company was already unregistered from 1 April, before the renewal was even submitted on 20 April. The gap exists independently of the new contract.
- The new contract's 1 May start date is irrelevant to the legality of the earlier lapse; the company must be registered before it renders any service, not before it signs a contract.
The argument should be rejected. The owner should be advised in writing of the exposure and the deployment instruction withdrawn.