A repossession can become significantly more complex where there is credible intelligence indicating criminal activity associated with the property or occupants.
The issue may involve organised crime, violence, drugs, weapons, trafficking, exploitation, serious anti-social behaviour or other criminal activity.
This introduces an important principle:
The asset may not be the greatest risk on the job.
The surrounding circumstances may be.
Why Criminality Changes the Risk Profile
An enforcement team attending a property associated with credible criminality may encounter circumstances significantly different from those encountered during a standard recovery.
The potential risks may extend to personnel, contractors, occupants, neighbours and members of the public.
There may also be safeguarding concerns.
This means that ordinary operational planning may no longer be sufficient.
Intelligence Before Attendance
CRA places considerable importance on understanding what is known before deployment.
This includes considering:
- What information exists?
- How reliable is it?
- How current is it?
- What does it actually indicate?
- What remains unknown?
- What are the consequences if the information is correct?
This is not about making assumptions based on someone’s background or location.
It is about making proportionate decisions based on credible information.
Developing Mitigation
Depending on the circumstances, mitigation may require:
- Enhanced intelligence assessment
- Additional security planning
- Specialist expertise
- Multi-agency liaison
- Appropriate communications
- Contingency planning
- Additional resources and
- Defined escalation arrangements
The fundamental principle is:
The level of preparation should reflect the credible level of risk.
Accountability
Criminality also reinforces why accountability matters.
Someone must be responsible for ensuring that relevant intelligence has been considered and that appropriate mitigation has been implemented.
The question should never be:
“Did someone know?”
It should be:
“Who assessed the information, what decision was made, and why?”
That is the difference between information being collected and information being operationally useful.
The next article addresses perhaps one of the most sensitive areas of complex enforcement: vulnerability and mental health crisis risk.
