no hole

[Tyler J. Thomas]

Yawn.

I don't buy the "added resistance to a profile cylinder costs more than people are willing/capable to pay" anymore. Those enhancers are relatively cheap and work like a charm. That's what you Euro's get for your subpar design, haha.

[dls]

Well all i can say to that is that is that if a euro barrel is fitted correctly it will not protrude past the outer surface of the door more than 1.5 mm and i prefer to fit them flush or even slightly recessed , also many of the older locks are not compatible with the screws which bolt through the lock case.
There are plenty of people out there who are poor who cant afford what you might consider cheap and for them buying a snap resistant cylinder might be a cheaper option.

a cheaper option again would be to take a hacksaw to a cheap cylinder and cut between the second and third pin on each side about a third of the way through to create a weak point where the cylinder will hopefully give way.
a simpler option would be to chamfer the outer face of the barrel to stop an attacker from getting a grip.

[Tyler J. Thomas]

There are plenty of people out there who are poor who cant afford what you might consider cheap and for them buying a snap resistant cylinder might be a cheaper option.

When you consider that the retrofit kits from Squire are substantially cheaper than the cost of a lock itself, you realize how incorrect your notion is.

Again, I refuse to buy that argument anymore. Squire has mass produced an acceptable addition that doesn't break anyone's bank or come close to it. We're talking under 10 Euro here.

[Evan]

There are plenty of people out there who are poor who cant afford what you might consider cheap and for them buying a snap resistant cylinder might be a cheaper option.

When you consider that the retrofit kits from Squire are substantially cheaper than the cost of a lock itself, you realize how incorrect your notion is.

Again, I refuse to buy that argument anymore. Squire has mass produced an acceptable addition that doesn't break anyone's bank or come close to it. We're talking under 10 Euro here.

@Confederate:

"Its only 10 Euro" is great and all when you are considering a home with one or two doors... When you are looking at a larger complex where there are hundreds of locked openings, that "only 10 Euro" adds up to unnecessary thousands very quickly -- plus labor to install, to modify locks that work properly as they are right now...

Most properties will not go through that expense until they suffer a covered loss due to a cylinder being snapped and the insurance company demands/requests/requires some action to reduce the successful exploit of that vulnerability in the future if the insured wants to maintain their coverage...

You see the same sort of reluctance to replace worn cylinders because: they still work...

~~ Evan

[dls]

A person with arthritis or something might have to pay some one to fit it that will cost

[Tyler J. Thomas]

[@Confederate:

"Its only 10 Euro" is great and all when you are considering a home with one or two doors... When you are looking at a larger complex where there are hundreds of locked openings, that "only 10 Euro" adds up to unnecessary thousands very quickly -- plus labor to install, to modify locks that work properly as they are right now...

A larger complex is not the sole responsibility of one renter, so that is a moot point at best. The complex is responsible. More than likely, they'll install them per request or as each tennant leaves. For example, when you typically move into an apartment you are given the choice of which lock you would prefer. I lived in a complex where you could have a digital deadbolt for an extra $75, one time fee. I could have also had a keyed knob for an addition $15. Neither were required and they definitely wouldn't have put me into financial stress. If you're moving into a complex and an optional $10 Euro is putting you to the tipping point then you shouldn't be renting in the first place. Per contracts in place, complex management typically cannot force you to adopt their added security measures at your expense. So, this wouldn't be done without their say.

If it's your house do you really think a majority of home owners are going to alter their own cylinders in lieu of paying a locksmith to do so or, worst case scenario, retrofit each lock with the Enhancer? Don't give me that crap.

If the home owner is going to protect themselves from this vulnerability, they're reacting on their own accord. Do you see Americans coming up with DIY methods to combat bumping or prying attacks en masse? No. They're buying aftermarket products and installing it themselves or having someone do it for them OR they're choosing not to take precautionary measures.

Most properties will not go through that expense until they suffer a covered loss due to a cylinder being snapped and the insurance company demands/requests/requires some action to reduce the successful exploit of that vulnerability in the future if the insured wants to maintain their coverage...

You see the same sort of reluctance to replace worn cylinders because: they still work...

~~ Evan

The apartment complex is not responsible for losses in such case. Why do you think renter's insurance exist? Why do you think liability clauses exist in a renter's agreement with regards to personal belongs, i.e. "Management is not responsible for personal items lost in your car or residence"?

Give me a SINGLE documented event with regards to security where such a move was made in an apartment complex or condominium that required existing renters/owners to upgrade their locks out of their own pockets.

Until then, your examples are hypothetical and not worth inclusion in this debate. You can bend and contort reality to support your argument all day but when viewed in terms of reality, it doesn't hold water.

[Tyler J. Thomas]

A person with arthritis or something might have to pay some one to fit it that will cost

Oh wow, drawing straws now?

Look, don't buy it, or complain about it's cost. In reality, it's not going to cost much more than your DIY method and independent associations and groups have tested and validated it's claims. The Enhancer is legit and a viable solution in terms of cost and safety. If you want to try your method to save a few dollars and hope it holds up as well as the Enhancer - knock yourself out.

I'll have my money on the guys that have been doing this for over a century but, then again, I'm just a practical person.

[Evan]

A larger complex is not the sole responsibility of one renter, so that is a moot point at best. The complex is responsible. More than likely, they'll install them per request or as each tennant leaves. For example, when you typically move into an apartment you are given the choice of which lock you would prefer. I lived in a complex where you could have a digital deadbolt for an extra $75, one time fee. I could have also had a keyed knob for an addition $15. Neither were required and they definitely wouldn't have put me into financial stress. If you're moving into a complex and an optional $10 Euro is putting you to the tipping point then you shouldn't be renting in the first place. Per contracts in place, complex management typically cannot force you to adopt their added security measures at your expense. So, this wouldn't be done without their say.

Actually, renter's insurance only covers the chattels owned by the tenant, not the door, lock or other structural damages which are owned by the landlord and insured by the same... There are at least TWO insurance claims made after a burglary where destructive means were used to enter the premises...

Any landlord worth their skins would not wait to replace or upgrade a lock as each tenant leaves, a major upgrade in the security level of the unit doors or locks would be applied to the whole complex in carefully planned phases to ensure that some units aren't better secured than others for any appreciable period of time as it can take decades for all of the units in a complex to change over...

The apartment complex is not responsible for losses in such case. Why do you think renter's insurance exist? Why do you think liability clauses exist in a renter's agreement with regards to personal belongs, i.e. "Management is not responsible for personal items lost in your car or residence"?

Yes, they are responsible for their losses to their physical property and structural elements, which is separate from the tenant's chattels insured and covered by the individual tenant's renter's insurance...

Give me a SINGLE documented event with regards to security where such a move was made in an apartment complex or condominium that required existing renters/owners to upgrade their locks out of their own pockets.

With apartments your point is correct, the landlord would have to cover any lock replacements and would generally file an insurance claim to cover the costs of that work if it was in response to a lost or stolen key... As far as condo complexes go you are flat out wrong, if there is a master key and it is lost, each unit owner would be special assessed for the emergency replacement of the locks if some contingency fund set aside for such an event didn't exist... The condo owners would pay out of pocket for that expense just like any other common area related expense which they pay monthly condo fees for which are calculated based on the approved budget, the total amount of which is divided amongst the unit owners based on each unit's square footage...

Until then, your examples are hypothetical and not worth inclusion in this debate. You can bend and contort reality to support your argument all day but when viewed in terms of reality, it doesn't hold water.

Umm... Clearly you aren't as up on the very complicated arrangements which exist to insure rental property... You have a correct understanding about how renter's insurance works but apparently not what it's boundaries are and what other aspects are insured by the landlord... That opinion is not moot, it does hold water and should be included in this "debate"... There is nothing hypothetical about anything I have said...

~~ Evan

[Tyler J. Thomas]

Actually, renter's insurance only covers the chattels owned by the tenant, not the door, lock or other structural damages which are owned by the landlord and insured by the same... There are at least TWO insurance claims made after a burglary where destructive means were used to enter the premises...

Sure, but the owner is not responsible for the tenant's property unless negligence is proven. So, dissect it all you want.

Any landlord worth their skins would not wait to replace or upgrade a lock as each tenant leaves, a major upgrade in the security level of the unit doors or locks would be applied to the whole complex in carefully planned phases to ensure that some units aren't better secured than others for any appreciable period of time as it can take decades for all of the units in a complex to change over...

Yeah, and that is why all the complexes in America are swapping out pin tumblers for bump proof locks, right? Come on, get real.

I could argue the logistics, costs, and legal implications to swapping out locks as tenants leave. For example, amending the lease agreement for said vulnerability, but that's moot without real life evidence.

Yes, they are responsible for their losses to their physical property and structural elements, which is separate from the tenant's chattels insured and covered by the individual tenant's renter's insurance...

By their physical property I assume you mean their office computers, furniture, etc.? Well sure, but that wasn't the point I was alluding to. That's only a handful of doors compared to an entire complex.

Again, unless negligence can be proven, a renter's assets in an apartment are their sole responsibility, hence Renter's insurance.

As far as condo complexes go you are flat out wrong, if there is a master key and it is lost, each unit owner would be special assessed for the emergency replacement of the locks if some contingency fund set aside for such an event didn't exist

Can you produce a citation to any HoA that contains such a clause? I'd love to see that. I've never heard of such.

... The condo owners would pay out of pocket for that expense just like any other common area related expense which they pay monthly condo fees for which are calculated based on the approved budget, the total amount of which is divided amongst the unit owners based on each unit's square footage...

Again, I'd like to see some sort of HoA that corroborates this.

On an anecdotal level, I've rekeyed both an entire apartment complex and condominium building due to an employee losing some level of a master key. Both times, management took the hit and not the renters/owners. I can't imagine any management company having the balls to inflict their mistake on the renters/owners pockets.

[Evan]

Actually, renter's insurance only covers the chattels owned by the tenant, not the door, lock or other structural damages which are owned by the landlord and insured by the same... There are at least TWO insurance claims made after a burglary where destructive means were used to enter the premises...

Sure, but the owner is not responsible for the tenant's property unless negligence is proven. So, dissect it all you want.

I wouldn't call that dissection... I would call that knowing the difference between what belongs to the tenant (which the tenant insures) and what is attached to the building and the property of the landlord (and therefore the landlord's responsibility to insure and repair if damaged)... The owner or owner's insurance carrier (above and beyond the owner's objections at times) can be held responsible for something years later as the civil court process to resolve disputes amongst various insurers can last that long even though the insurance payouts have taken place...

Any landlord worth their skins would not wait to replace or upgrade a lock as each tenant leaves, a major upgrade in the security level of the unit doors or locks would be applied to the whole complex in carefully planned phases to ensure that some units aren't better secured than others for any appreciable period of time as it can take decades for all of the units in a complex to change over...

Yeah, and that is why all the complexes in America are swapping out pin tumblers for bump proof locks, right? Come on, get real.

I could argue the logistics, costs, and legal implications to swapping out locks as tenants leave. For example, amending the lease agreement for said vulnerability, but that's moot without real life evidence.

No, see, if the landlord only replaced certain locks and not others, that would not be providing the same standard of protection to all the units being rented... The insurance carrier wouldn't care what is in the lease as that is between the tenant and the landlord and doesn't affect the insurance agreement between the renter and the underwriter...

Amending the lease agreement to include "we are sorry, but at this time your apartment's door lock is not as secure as several of the others which have been recently replaced, but be assured your door lock is scheduled to be upgraded some day soon, but between now and then the management is not responsible for any losses you might suffer because of this fact" would be trying to sever liability in a way which would not be enforceable in any housing court that I am aware of for a basic element of the rental unit the landlord is legally obligated to provide... The landlord might even get in trouble with their insurance carrier for making such statements because there is knowledge behind making such a statement that is not being fully disclosed...

Yes, they are responsible for their losses to their physical property and structural elements, which is separate from the tenant's chattels insured and covered by the individual tenant's renter's insurance...

By their physical property I assume you mean their office computers, furniture, etc.? Well sure, but that wasn't the point I was alluding to. That's only a handful of doors compared to an entire complex.

Again, unless negligence can be proven, a renter's assets in an apartment are their sole responsibility, hence Renter's insurance.

No, by the landlord's physical property I mean the land, the sidewalks, the parking lot(s), the building, the doors, the walls, the windows, the light fixtures, the light switches, the electrical outlets, the wiring, the hand-railings, the stairs, the carpeting, the cabinetry, the plumbing fixtures, the pipes, the appliances, the boilers, the landscaping, the mailboxes... All of those items belong to the landlord so they are insured by the landlord... The *ONLY* things that the landlord does not insure are the tenant's belongings... The landlord owns quite a bit more than just a handful of doors to storage rooms and some office furniture... The renter's insurance ONLY insures the renter's belongings -- not the landlord's structure or any aspect or element of the same... The renter's insurance does not cover any damage to the apartment unit door or frame or any of the windows which were probably damaged during a burglary...

As far as condo complexes go you are flat out wrong, if there is a master key and it is lost, each unit owner would be special assessed for the emergency replacement of the locks if some contingency fund set aside for such an event didn't exist

Can you produce a citation to any HoA that contains such a clause? I'd love to see that. I've never heard of such.

Don't have to produce an HoA citation which contains such a clause -- the condo complex just existing means that the owners of the individual units have to pay for their share of the common asset overhead/operational costs which the condo association needs take care of in order to provide for proper care and maintenance of the common areas of the complex for which it is responsible for...

All common expenses in a condo complex are paid for by the unit owners -- there is no external source of revenue nor is there a management company/single owner/landlord paying for all those costs like in an apartment complex... Each unit owner in a condo complex owns a specific percentage of interest in the common elements of the complex but there is no actual "owner" of the common lands and property other than the not-for-profit condo association corporation...

... The condo owners would pay out of pocket for that expense just like any other common area related expense which they pay monthly condo fees for which are calculated based on the approved budget, the total amount of which is divided amongst the unit owners based on each unit's square footage...

Again, I'd like to see some sort of HoA that corroborates this.

On an anecdotal level, I've rekeyed both an entire apartment complex and condominium building due to an employee losing some level of a master key. Both times, management took the hit and not the renters/owners. I can't imagine any management company having the balls to inflict their mistake on the renters/owners pockets.

Again, any cost to operate the common assets of a condo complex is budgeted on an annual basis... The total cost of the annual budget is divided amongst the individual unit owners according to the square footage of their unit... That percentage which each owner is responsible for is then divided into 12 monthly payments for that unit for that year...

So if something unexpected comes up during the course of a year for which the budget didn't plan for or the rainy day fund couldn't cover, then the repairs are made on an emergency basis and the costs of said repairs are divided the same way as the annual budgeted operating costs and special assessed to all the unit owners if it is an expense that the association is responsible for... If it was something that a specific party was proven to have caused damage to, then that party if they can be adequately proven (to the standards required in court) could then be billed for the entire cost... But sometimes that is all after the fact and resolved months later -- the owners in the meantime had to pay for the emergency repairs and had to pay a special assessment in the interim to cover those costs...

In the condo complex "management took the hit" -- meaning they engaged your services and paid the bill, which they then turned around and provided to the condo board for payment as an operating expense... A management company isn't going to be eating expenses on a complex where they are getting a basic monthly contract fee for service and billing hourly rates for employee labor -- not when most such arrangements can be canceled with as little as 60 days notice and being selected by the new board each year after the elections is not always a sure thing...

In an apartment complex the landlord/owner is obligated to provide a door lock on each unit as well as the exterior building entry doors in order to legally rent the units... Since those locks belong to the landlord and not the tenants, the landlord pays to maintain and replace them as needed... In a condo complex the unit owners are required to provide their own door locks -- if there is a master key in place the condo board can determine where the unit owners must obtain the locks from (a specific locksmith who will provide the proper keyway and to key the locks as directed by the condo board) and what type of locks they must be to conform with some rule or requirement of the condo association... Therefore any costs to maintain or replace such locks is an operating cost for the association and is absorbed by the individual owners...

~~ Evan

[dls]

time to put this one to bed me thinks the posts are getting a bit on the long side

[Tyler J. Thomas]

Evan, three times I have asked you for any sort of evidence to backup your notions of what is and isn't the complexes' responsibility, in the form of either a HOA or civil suit, and you're still posting your interpretation of what you think is the case.

So, please, produce a citation to corroborate what you're purporting. I don't want your thoughts or what you think is the case, I'd rather have real world evidence.

[Evan]

Evan, three times I have asked you for any sort of evidence to backup your notions of what is and isn't the complexes' responsibility, in the form of either a HOA or civil suit, and you're still posting your interpretation of what you think is the case.

So, please, produce a citation to corroborate what you're purporting. I don't want your thoughts or what you think is the case, I'd rather have real world evidence.

Ok... It is clear that you are not involved all that often in property management:

With apartments, owned and/or managed by a single entity EVERYTHING is the complexes' responsibility -- the tenant only has to pay rent to the landlord and keep the unit clean...

With condos, there are such VAST DIFFERENCES with what is and isn't a common element (meaning it is not owned by any specific unit and is therefore the responsibility of the association) that referencing any single HoA document would be useless as any sort of "evidence" for anything other than things related directly to the complex the document is referring to... With condos, whatever is within the boundaries of a given unit and is serving only that unit is the responsibility of the owner of that unit -- everything else is the responsibility of the association... You can not state it any simpler than that...

Just because you dealt with and were paid by a management company when you dealt with ONE condo complex has no bearing on whose money that company was actually using to pay the bills... Management companies are retained by condo associations for the express purpose of dealing with the day to day business things that condo board members have not the first clue how to handle and are things that need to occur during business hours when the condo owners are off at their jobs earning a living... Such as locating a contractor or vendor quickly to provide services that are necessary to operate the condo complex or respond to some emergency...

I don't know what else to tell you other than you are asking for something which wouldn't be of use to you in your quest for evidence... Apartments are apartments and condos are a universe onto themselves... As far as what my interpretations are in this instance, I would go with them, I have 10 years experience in property management and something like this is basic property management 101 stuff...

~~ Evan

[Tyler J. Thomas]

Well if you can't produce evidence, then I guess it's your word versus mine, which puts us back at square one. Agree to disagree and get back on topic?

[Evan]

Well if you can't produce evidence, then I guess it's your word versus mine, which puts us back at square one. Agree to disagree and get back on topic?

What you are asking is not feasible to produce, nor would it apply to our discussion here, as that condo complex might not have a "master key" clause in its documentation... While condo associations always reserve the right of entry in an emergency, it is often left vague as to how that entry will be made as not every complex maintains a master key or duplicate copies of each owner's unit key...

If you are curious about condos, you can locate a nearby development in your local area and go to the local land registry office or city/town clerk and obtain a copy of the declaration of condo document which would legally outline and describe that condo complex...

No two of such documents are ever going to be the identical even if they were written by the same developer because the site conditions/definitions/boundaries in each complex are unique...

~~ Evan