Tenants Lost Key - Who Pays to Cover to Cost of Changing Locks?

yjun355 on 15/07/2021 - 13:02
Last edited 16/07/2021 - 17:48

Its my first time situation where tenant lost the key. It is those restricted keys where people have access to build and limited number made. In summary, there is no option but to change the locks (~$300).

Tenant argument that if they known it was that expensive they be careful or if there was any formal wording in the standard lease contract.

  • Anyone know if there is formal legal documentation around who is liable to pay for change of locks?
  • Is this the things which you take to Bond tribunal for dispute?

Update: Thanks for everyone's interest. Got the answer. It is high security system. So, if you loose key there is obligation to replace locks. Otherwise, future tenants can claim for loss of robbery. That in general is true for all cases. So, if tenant loose case, as landlord you are best to get locks replaced . Obviously, it is is common key, you wouldn't know and tenant would just replace it. However, as landlord if you know that keys are lost, you need to proceed with locks replaced. This is to cover yourself for future tenants.
Then in terms of cost, tenants are obligated to cover the cost. It is in Section 33.3 of contract. Going foward, i just created new welcome doc, so that they are aware on how it works.

Home & Garden

closed Comments

  • Hybroid on 15/07/2021 - 13:03
    +24

    My rental contract clearly outlines a charge for lost keys or access card. Is there nothing in the agreement you have?

      • coffeeinmyveins on 15/07/2021 - 14:17
        +41

        You mean after the fact? No, that is illegal. you could add it now and say "in the future…."

        • bobbified on 16/07/2021 - 10:37
          +9

          Why? After it's all stamped and signed, I change my bank cheques and contracts all the time! 😂

      • DonWilson on 16/07/2021 - 17:20
        +1

        The template contact talks about you giving copies of the key to the tenant. I think you're meant to keep a copy for yourself. You don't use that copy except under specific circumstances but you keep your own key.

      • Chchnu on 16/07/2021 - 17:23
        +3

        Yea just grab the contract you both signed and hand write in the bit about the key.

        Then take that contract and show them the key clause.

      • HumbleCat on 16/07/2021 - 21:01

        If you wrote any clause related to the tenant causing property damage or anything related to the property being left in good condition with acceptable wear and tear, you don't need a separate clause for keys. The keys are part of locks which are fixtures and hence covered under the same clauses. It is impossible for the tenant to give you back the property under the same condition barring wear and tear without the same locks.

        You can inform the tenant that at the end of their lease you expect the same type and quality of locks with the same number of keys to be returned to you. Else, you will consider that property damage and deduct from the bond.

        The only thing you cant do is ask for a key now since you didnt keep one in the first place. This doesnt affect you inspecting the property after giving reasonable notice.

        Dont worry about it. Just highlight either of the first 2 clauses if you have included in your original agreement and tell them you expect the locks to be in the same condition with keys at the end of the tenancy.

    • SF3 on 15/07/2021 - 14:39
      +20

      Sounds like OP is an DIY landlord… this seems to be an afterthought.

      Lesson learnt OP?

      • SlickMick on 16/07/2021 - 08:36
        +5

        OP is here to find out who's going to be schooled. I think he'll find that it might make things clearer if it is included in agreement, but regardless, tenant has to return all keys . In this case, tenant will need to replace locks to achieve that.

    • [Deactivated] on 17/07/2021 - 10:42
      -2

      I'm so confused. You can always make a new key. If they lost the key and reported a lost key - they just need to get a replacement key. Even if it is a security key it can be issued by locksmith for that unit. Keys don't identify which unit they are for so the security risk is very small. I don't understand why locks need to be changed ? The tenant pays for the lost key.

      • parsimonious one on 17/07/2021 - 14:34

        Yep.

        But if you read the update it seems OP has cherry picked the responses and advice that confirm his pre existing point of view and if going to try and make the tenant pay regardless

        • MrFrugalSpend on 17/07/2021 - 18:42
          +4

          Of course the tenant should pay - they didn't return the key! They may find it and let themselves in later after they've moved out or just be lying.
          That's very standard practice where there are registered keys involved.
          PS - I work in property and we manage tenants with registered key systems - have done this multiple times.

          • parsimonious one on 17/07/2021 - 18:49

            @MrFrugalSpend: Have you read the relevant clause from the tenancy agreement?

            It says that the tenant is liable for the cost of a replacement key. It doesn’t say the tenant is liable for new locks

      • MrFrugalSpend on 17/07/2021 - 18:40
        +2

        how is this confusing? The key is a registered key to the locks / address. If someone has / finds that key they can enter the property without even breaking in and steal stuff or worse!!?? Therefore, as the landlord knows there is a key outstanding / not returned, must change the locks because it is a security risk!
        For all OP knows the departing tenants are lying and have kept the key.

        We can only presume these are short term tenants moving out otherwise the key issue wouldn't have been raised.
        Sounds like holiday rental even by the updated 'welcome doc' comment.

        • [Deactivated] on 17/07/2021 - 18:50

          Keys get lost all the time - and yes an outstanding key could give access but how often can you trace that key back to the unit it belongs to. Think about every time you or anyone (family etc) with access lost a key - do you replace all the locks ?

          Car keys - do you replace the locks ?

          If the building is so secure - does it have swipes ? Passes ? Certain entry points ?

          How necessary is it to replace all the locks ?

          Worked in real estate for 9 months and not once were locks replaced. Lost keys were re-cut or building management arranged new ones and tenants paid for it.

          If it's blatently stolen / kept or who / which unit they belong to is easily identifiable then sure.

          • MrFrugalSpend on 17/07/2021 - 19:31
            +1

            @[Deactivated]: I don't lose keys. Never have. (Touch wood)

            The OP doesn't have to go to the expense of swipe passes - that comment is irrelevant.

            The building is secured by registered key system - a level of expense the building owner/OP has gone to so as to ensure keys can be tracked - The whole point of a registered key system is keys can't be copied and no key is unaccounted for. The tenant has negligently breached that which is loss / damage.

            So your real estate agency were slack. Doesn't mean OP isn't entitled to reinstating his secure registered key system with all keys accounted for.

            I manage property at work - have been in the industry for over 20 years. Perhaps because I deal with more with commercial property I see this issue regularly because registered key systems are more common / almost standard for commercial buildings. We do better contracts than standard NSW RTA and have required locks to be changed before at the tenants expense.

            We also regularly keep Key Registers and all registered keys are signed for with a notice that if you lose them, you pay for barrel changes. We drum it into our staff as well and it is common practice to require key replacement.

            As another example, we did work for a large university and they made us sign that if we lost their master key it would cost $250,000 to replace all the locks! This is understandable as people who find a 'GMK' or 'MK' master key on a uni campus would easily try it on any door and find they have the keys to the kingdom.

        • parsimonious one on 17/07/2021 - 18:59
          -1

          You are the one who seems to be confused:

          The standard nsw tenancy agreement states:

          Section 32:
          The landlord agrees …

          32.3 not to charge the tenant for the cost of providing the copies except to recover the cost of replacement or additional copies

          ——————————————-

          The tenant is requesting replacement/ additional copy.

          It is clear from the agreement that the OP cannot charge the tenant for anything beyond the cost of replacing the key

          • MrFrugalSpend on 17/07/2021 - 19:22

            @parsimonious one: No mate.

            This only talks about the cost of making copies of keys. As you say, the landlord can: "recover the cost of replacement"
            It does not in any way preclude charging for loss in other circumstances such as changing the lock barrels, or any other loss or damage the tenant causes.

            Under 33. The tenant agrees: 33.1 "not to alter, remove or add any lock or other security device without reasonable excuse"
            Losing the key is removing a security device without a reasonable excuse, which is a breach of contract.

            Under 16.4 "The tenant agrees not to … negligently cause or permit any damage to the residential premises"

            Under 17.3 that the tenant is responsible to the landlord for any act or omission by a person who is lawfully on the residential premises

            Further to this, there is also common law duties of care, losing it is negligence and it is reasonably foreseeable that the damages would extend to the cost of the lock barrels because the building is not secure.

            A better contract by all means would spell it out, like the ones I do. However it doesn't need to, tenant is responsible for their negligent actions and OP can seek reasonable damages for which this is.

            • parsimonious one on 17/07/2021 - 19:35
              +1

              @MrFrugalSpend: You are clutching at straws.

              Nothing has been damaged or removed

              There is one part of the tenancy agreement that specifically deals with replacement of keys. You are wilfully ignoring the clear directive therein and substituting tenuous links to other sections.

              Tenant lost a key. Tenant is requesting a replacement.

            • parsimonious one on 17/07/2021 - 19:58

              @MrFrugalSpend: Also some additional info from QLD RTA:

              https://www.rta.qld.gov.au/renting/starting-a-tenancy/locks-…

              Changing locks

              Locks can only be changed:

              • if the tenant and property manager/owner agree
              • in an emergency, or
              • by QCAT order.

              I couldn’t see anything about cos the tenant lost a key

              • MrFrugalSpend on 17/07/2021 - 20:34

                @parsimonious one: A key has been removed - it is a security device, and it forms part of the registered security system. Breach of contract - very clear.

                Additionally, the tenant has caused loss and damage - they have compromised a registered key system designed for ensuring who has access to the building can be tracked by recording keys, restricting them from being copied and tracking who they are given to. The landlord is at a financial loss as a result of their negligent actions. This is basic common law principles and loss has occurred on the landlord's part as a result of the tenant's actions.

                Once again, you are taking things completely out of context.
                These terms you are trying to misrepresent are trying to address the provision of legal access. Not who is responsible for paying for negligent loss or damage.

                The purpose of the first extract from the NSW Agreement you misrepresented is to state that the landlord must provide legal access (i.e. in the form of keys) and can't charge extra to do so when establishing access to the property. However it even goes so far as to state replacements can be charged. This part even works against you as it sets up an intention that if the tenant loses something they pay for replacement.

                The second extracts from QCAT are written on a website to inform landlords that they can't just decide to change the locks if they want to evict their tenant. There is a formal process to go through. Nothing to do with the topic again.

                • parsimonious one on 17/07/2021 - 20:50

                  @MrFrugalSpend: Firstly, you are fabricating context and intent to suit your point of view.

                  … is to state that the landlord must provide legal access (i.e. in the form of keys) and can't charge extra to do so

                  the relevant section (section 32) is titled locks and security (not access or other unrelated topics) and specifically mentions “additional” and “replacement” keys. The only one misrepresenting and taking thing out of context is you

                  I am not arguing the tenant isn’t liable for the cost of the replacement key, they are as per clause 32.3. It says nothing about liability for locks.

                  Secondly, you keep banging on about negligence. To prove negligence you (the landlord) would have to prove the tenant did not take reasonable steps to look after the key. Simply losing a key isn’t negligent.

                  All your bluster is pseudo legal smoke and mirrors.

                  It saddens me that you report that you’ve bullied tenants into paying these sorts of charges previously.

                  If the OP is so confident in their entitlements they should try and take it out of the bond and hopefully the tenant will let nCAT decide. I have a strong suspicion which side nCAT will side with.

                  • MrFrugalSpend on 17/07/2021 - 21:02
                    -2

                    @parsimonious one: What a load a crap.
                    You don't have to prove they tried to look for the key.
                    Where did you study law? the back of a cereal box?

                    It saddens me that you think someone can lose someone else's things and take no responsibility for their actions, and make someone else to pay to get things back to the way they were! Take some responsibility for your actions. I'd offer to replace the locks if I lost my landlord's registered key from a keying system because I'm not a self entitled ………

                    Perhaps I have more respect for other people's property
                    Perhaps I just understand more the importance of registered key systems seeing as though I've had to pay for them and track down keys tenants flippantly have no regard for, and then shell out money to replace them when they shrug their shoulders about not returning them. Hence, its only fair to recover the expense they caused!

                    • parsimonious one on 17/07/2021 - 21:11
                      +1

                      @MrFrugalSpend: Wow… this response sums up your level of reasoning.

                      Firstly, as has been stated in pretty much all my posts to you, as per 32.2 the tenant is liable for the cost of replacement the key (read this a few times so it sinks in as you seem to have missed it every other time).

                      Secondly, I didn’t say the LL would have to prove the tenant “looked for the key”. I said (and feel free to google it to confirm this) that to prove negligence (the word you keep using) that the LL would have to prove reasonable care wasn’t taken. “Reasonable” is typically defined as

                      the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the circumstances

                      So what would that be with respect to a key?? Keeping it on a key chain? LOL

                      Losing a key is not negligence per se (google that too)

                      • MrFrugalSpend on 17/07/2021 - 21:55

                        @parsimonious one: Yes I accidentally inserted "for" instead of "after" - So what - you don't have to prove they tried to look after the key.

                        The elements of negligence are that a duty of care existed, that is was breached, and damage was caused.
                        1. They possessed and inhabited the landlord's property, a duty of care would clearly exist.
                        2. They lost the key - you can argue around it if you like but the proof is in the pudding, if they lost the key and claimed if they knew how expensive it was they'd have taken better care of it ("Tenant argument that if they known it was that expensive they be careful"), they've mostly hung themselves on this already!
                        3. Damage was caused - "It is high security system. So, if you lose key there is obligation to replace locks." There's plenty to evidence the OP had taken steps to achieve a traceable level of security that now that is compromised it is justified to replace as OP has asserted, so therefore there is financial damage.

                        I have no idea why you keep repeating the tenant is liable for the cost of the replacement key - of course they are - they lost it! I think we are in agreement on that one! They can pay for a replacement key with whole barrel attached seen as though the keying system is now compromised. Still means they are liable - doesn't say what they aren't liable for - read that carefully as you seem to keep missing that one! It's not an exhaustive list

                        Regardless, I don't really care all that much what the NSW standard RTA lease says as I'd never use/rely on it. I have several registered key systems and actually require people to acknowledge they are responsible if they lose them for barrel changes and back it up in lease terms. I never have to bully anyone because I make sure liability falls where it should without argument and I'd sure never have someone trying to rely on taking clauses out of context (intended to be about protecting tenants from getting locked out of the house) from the QCAT website to try get out of paying for fixing a system they screwed up that I had spent good money on!

  • brendanm on 15/07/2021 - 13:04
    +54

    Tenant argument that if they known it was that expensive they be careful

    Lol. They should be careful with other people's property regardless of cost. They lost it, they should pay, $300 isn't that bad, and a cheap lesson.

    • Donaldhump on 15/07/2021 - 13:32
      +15

      that's the most bullshit excuse ever… go smash their car window and use the same logic.

    • parsimonious one on 16/07/2021 - 17:17
      +1

      Yeah.

      They lost it, they should pay.

      Surely it’s in your tenancy agreement that they have to return the keys.

      If they have lost them, whether it’s now or at the end of the tenancy they’ll be liable for the cost of replacement

      Ps: OP don’t you have a back up set as spare?

    • Vote for Pedro on 16/07/2021 - 18:48

      Tend to agree on this one. Tenants responsibility.

      The line of “if I knew how exxy, I’d be more careful” swayed me away from suggesting offering 50/50 split if they are good tenants even though it’s 100% their fault.

    • hasher22 on 17/07/2021 - 20:07

      "I didn't know murder was illegal…….. please let me off judge, I won't do it again"

  • Mechz on 15/07/2021 - 13:05
    +5

    Why do you need to change locks? Unless the key had the address stamped on it?

    • yjun355 on 15/07/2021 - 13:34
      -6

      That is the cost. to change the locks.

      • markathome on 15/07/2021 - 13:48
        +11

        Read and then answer Mechz's question?

        • SlickMick on 16/07/2021 - 08:38

          edit: comment withdrawn. I got schooled :) (Didn't know more keys can be produced.)

      • Chchnu on 16/07/2021 - 17:25

        Yes

    • silentsoar on 15/07/2021 - 13:53
      +2

      Answer was in the post, it's a restricted lock so keys can't be copied

      • bobbified on 15/07/2021 - 15:31
        +27

        The keys are restricted, but the locksmith or company that the keys are registered/restricted to can produce new keys. The restriction is to stop other locksmiths/companies from producing the same key design.

    • yjun355 on 15/07/2021 - 14:43
      +2

      Baically, reading through it there is a security risk. So, if there is robbery, then the tenant can claim the cost from owner for lost key. https://files.tenants.org.au/factsheets/fs07.pdf

      • Drakesy on 16/07/2021 - 17:27

        Well technically there's no way of knowing how many keys are in circulation if there have been previous tenants that may have cut their own keys or had them programmed in addition to the ones provided so really any rental property would be 'unsecure' unless it was a keycard system where you could cancel certain cards.

        It wouldn't be on the tenant to change the lock every time they moved out.

        Just food for though.

        • cbastien on 16/07/2021 - 19:36

          The electronic keys can be hack so they won t be accepted as proof. They can help for the investigation but you ll need to find something else as proof of the burglary.

      • smartazz104 on 17/07/2021 - 13:40

        This restrictions exist on the off chance to stop thieves, but more likely it becomes a headache for the landlord and tenant; one again security measures make life harder for honest people.

    • MrFrugalSpend on 17/07/2021 - 18:46
      +1

      Because the house isn't secure if the security device that opens the door's whereabouts is unknown - because its registered to that address; it could be lost in the yard right outside for all OP knows so someone tries it on the door, the departing tenant could be lying and trying to keep it to get in later or not lying now… but have that thought when they later find the key but have moved out; etc.

      I would 100% be making my tenant pay to replace the locks and this is standard practice with registered key systems
      We make people sign acknowledging that in my industry

  • Hithere on 15/07/2021 - 13:10
    +39

    Tenant lost the key, tenant pays to change locks.

    Tenant's argument is strawman's, why should the cost of the key have any bearing on their due care required?

    • afoveht on 15/07/2021 - 13:18
      +1

      why should the cost of the key have any bearing on their due care required

      I don't necessarily disagree but it might be a valid consideration. Eg.: I expect Aus. Consumer Law will treat a telly costing $200 and $5000 quite differently.

      • Switchblade88 on 15/07/2021 - 14:15
        +7

        This has no bearing in relation to the ACL though, the tenant isn't buying a service or goods. Might be under Fair Trading's jurisdiction instead.

        OP, if they are trying to sort this out whilst still living there (i.e. they can't get in due to their own fault) then you've set a reasonable price (which you can obviously prove with a quote from a locksmith) and you can simply wait until they pay up or leave. If the tenant doesn't return the key upon end of lease then you as landlord would have definite rights to claim on their bond.

        On the flipside a tenant is permitted to get their locks changed under certain circumstances, at their own cost, and provide the landlord with a new key set. If they think $300 is unreasonable they can get their own quotes.

        • afoveht on 15/07/2021 - 15:06
          +3

          This has no bearing in relation to the ACL

          I didn't say it did. I just provided an example of cost being a factor in due care. In this instance maybe it's more a case of exclusivity or security rather than cost. They all may matter. I know I would certainly be more careful of something if it was known to me that it was of an exceptional nature.

          Again, not saying the tenant is not responsible or liable to make the situation right, but they do have a meaningful point about not being informed of the value key.

          • Switchblade88 on 15/07/2021 - 15:43

            @afoveht:

            cost being a factor in due care

            This is a really fascinating point I'd not really considered in a legal sense. Hmmm…

            Have you got any examples or the like to make this point? Common sense would dictate that due care should be taken by any party irrespective of the cost/replacement value. e.g. AusPost will not treat fragile items any different; the sender could pay for insurance but that is there specifically because AusPost WON'T use the item value as a factor in their due care.

            • afoveht on 15/07/2021 - 16:09

              @Switchblade88: I can't immediately think of anything in a legal sense apart from the ACL. But I'd be pretty confident that some dude in a wig with a gavel would much quicker discharge a case for a damaged Corolla than a damaged Lamborghini classic.

              My own take on common sense is that the more valuable something is the more care should be taken with it. Of course we are all going to ascribe our own values and may have justifications for such. Unless something common, like say a key, is explicitly declared with a special value I would assume its common value.

              I think the AusPost example is germane. I don't know their actual operations but if something requires special attention it should have "handle with care" plastered over it too. The fact that insurance is taken out antecedent to the item being posted is yet another special attention; I wouldn't insure a common key but I certainly might insure a $300 key.

              • Switchblade88 on 15/07/2021 - 16:44

                @afoveht: Auspost specifically disclaims due care:

                While we don't actually offer a 'Fragile' service, we'll always try to handle items with care. But writing on your item won't protect it when it's in a mail bag or being processed through sorting equipment.

                So your stickers will not give any variation to the due care provided, unfortunately.

                some dude in a wig with a gavel would much quicker discharge a case for a damaged Corolla than a damaged Lamborghini classic.

                If there's proven loss caused by another drunk driver (i.e. the tenant) then the magistrate is going to rule in favour, regardless of the victim's vehicle that was damaged. Any driver is expected to act with 'due care' on the road irrespective of their own or other's vehicle values; causing damage/loss to another party due to lack of due care i.e. negligence make you automatically liable for damages irrespective of the value.

                • afoveht on 15/07/2021 - 17:21

                  @Switchblade88: You're now taking about damages far beyond the value of the item itself. Again, it must be asked what a reasonable person would expect reasonable damages to be in a given situation. The potential damages caused by a car are pretty known to most people who legally drive a car. I don't expect most people would expect a lost key would cost $300.

                  Anyway, this could be argued forever. Old dudes in wigs would love it. I think if the key was so important there should have been something said about it up front.

                  • ankor on 17/07/2021 - 20:52

                    @afoveht: It's really, really simple and you don't need a magistrate to figure it out.

                    The loss of the key renders the property unsecure and this is because of the tenant.

                    The tenant pays to make the place secure again.

                    That's not done by getting a copy of a now unsecured key, that's done by changing the locks.

            • terrys on 16/07/2021 - 08:47
              +1

              @Switchblade88: "AusPost will not treat fragile items "

              The difference in treatment isn't due to any financial value of the item, merely a label signifying in French that it should be tossed gently.

    • Quantumcat on 15/07/2021 - 16:12
      +9

      Agree - are the tenants saying if it was a $5 key they'd just leave it wherever, get a new key cut and screw whoever rents the place next in regards to being robbed? The cost of the key should not matter, they should avoid losing it regardless of what it costs to replace.

      • Nugs on 15/07/2021 - 16:31

        yep, anything worth locking is worth stealing
        .

  • Drakesy on 15/07/2021 - 13:16
    +17

    I do feel sorry for them. In no way should losing a key (if it's untraceable) result in forking out for new locks to a house. Paying to get new keys cut, yes that's the tenant's cost but new locks is kind of pushing it.

    Although i find it weird that as a landlord you don't keep a spare key, changing locks should be worst case scenario.
    Surely your property manager would have one?

    I'd assume there'd be a locksmith who'd be able to get one made up - they're pretty handy when it comes to "limited" keys could even follow up with the original lock company, generally they have a code on the key (if you have one) that they can replicate. Keys are one thing that can and will go missing, designing a lock that only works with the key it's supplied with is just asking for it.

    $300 to change locks though does sound suspiciously cheap.

    • pegaxs on 15/07/2021 - 13:33
      +6

      As a locksmith, you cannot touch other restricted key systems. You can't make keys for them or replace the keys. You need to go back to the locksmith who installed them or to whom the right to make keys for that set has passed to.

      If you are going to be replacing the whole system, any locksmith can do a full replacement system.

      InB4: "I just get the Chinese guy at Paddy's markets/Bunnings to cut my keys…" Yeah good luck getting them to cut, let alone have restricted profiles.

      • Drakesy on 15/07/2021 - 13:53

        I feel like the op is missing some critical information

        • pegaxs on 15/07/2021 - 17:22
          +6

          There is something missing, but that seems to be par for the course on this site. Give as little info as you can and obfuscate what you do say…

          Seems to be a lot of hoo har over a missing set of keys. Who goes from 0 to NCAT/fair trading in that amount of time?

      • deme on 15/07/2021 - 18:05
        +2

        Yes you can.

        Restricted keys are just shitty keys with patents.

        You need the blank (whether or not the patent holder will give you a blank is a different question).

        There is nothing stoping you touching (figuratively or literally) a restricted key system.

        99% of locksmiths are just plebs defending their trade through obscurity.

      • based on 16/07/2021 - 17:17
        +1

        Is that physically can't do it eg. Because it needs tools/information you don't have access to?
        Or can't do it for legal/reputation reasons?
        If the locksmith who installed a restricted system had closed up could another locksmith cut restricted keys then?

        • [Deactivated] on 16/07/2021 - 17:49

          Would love to know this, locksmiths?

          • ProlapsedHeinous on 16/07/2021 - 18:24

            @[Deactivated]: A bit of both. the keys are controlled, and depending on your location the profiles may also be slightly different. A locksmith may not have access to a lockwood MT5 system, but may be registered to make Abloy systems. So it mostly depends on what the system is, what locksmiths are permitted to, and have access to blank keys, as well as the general rule amongst all locksmiths to not copy anyone elses systems. They risk losing access to be able to use the system and the blanks if they are found out. It's not worth the reputation/legal risk.

            • parsimonious one on 16/07/2021 - 18:38

              @ProlapsedHeinous: Isn’t it just a matter of finding the right locksmith then?

              Also, if that’s the case how can a customer find the appropriate locksmith to make a copy?

              • ProlapsedHeinous on 16/07/2021 - 18:52

                @parsimonious one: You can get a copy, but OP is kinda right when they say the key being lost is still a potential liability for future tenants. Yes OP could easily get a new key cut, but the old one will still be floating around somewhere and possibly be a liability. The customer won't be named under the registration of that system, so they won't be allowed to get a new key unless OP gives them permission to do so through whatever locksmith the restricted system was set up at.

          • pegaxs on 16/07/2021 - 19:29
            +4

            @[Deactivated]:

            Would love to know this, locksmiths?

            Ok, I've not been a locksmith for long and only do it on and off when I have spare time as I build up a customer base, but I'll see what I can remember/work out…

            Restricted keys are just shitty keys with patents.

            Yes, and no. Patents don't last forever, so some keys are covered by patents, some are covered differently, ie: by restricting who can buy the blanks and where the blanks can be sourced from. Cutting them isn't the issue, sourcing them is.

            You need the blank (whether or not the patent holder will give you a blank is a different question).

            Basically this. This is why I always laugh when people say "Oh, I know this guy at the markets who doesn't care and will copy anything." I have about 6 different keys I use for different jobs I work at, and none of them would be available from "markets guy"

            There is nothing stoping you touching (figuratively or literally) a restricted key system.

            Grey area. I can remove a restricted system, or I can replace a faulty part of a system with a whole new part (ie: to re-secure the building until the restricted system locksmith can get there.) What I cant do is copy any part of the system or dismantle, play with or record/reverse engineer the key coding part of the system. Sometimes this is because I don't have the parts required, ie: restricted keys, or the pins (BiLock for example). There is nothing stopping me from "touching" the system if it isnt mine, there are just things I am and am not allowed to do with that system. If I did play with that system and cut keys for someone who was not the designated owner of that system, I could lose my security license, my locksmith association membership and access to keys and possibly face legal action.

            99% of locksmiths are just plebs defending their trade through obscurity.

            Yeah, and probably for good reason. This is security we are talking about. Do you want just anyone being able to cut a key for a system you may have paid $40,000 for that secures your factory? Do you want some $49 Fartbook drongo getting a hold of the key codes to your house/car? The whole system makes sense to the people who are in it and use it every day. You could say the same thing about network administrators. Are the being obscure to "PrOtEcT ThEiR TrAdE" or are they doing it to protect their system and their users?

            Is that physically can't do it eg. Because it needs tools/information you don't have access to?

            Sometimes, yes. Some systems, like Bi-Lock can only be cut on a very specalised machine that they dont sell to locksmiths. Some "blank" keys are sold with what is called a "dealer permutation", such as Twinlock, some Kaba, MT5, etc, that have a special section that is cut at the factory, and I literally cannot buy those blanks with that "dealer perm" cuts on them.

            Or can't do it for legal/reputation reasons?

            Correct. As stated somewhere here, if another locksmith found out you were (fropanity) with their system or cutting keys for their system for unauthorised users (ie: bypassing owner and cutting for tennants), you could be in for some legal action, lose your license and access to locksmith associations/suppliers.

            If the locksmith who installed a restricted system had closed up could another locksmith cut restricted keys then?

            Yes and no. Quote often these systems are sold/swapped/given to other dealers/locksmiths when the original company stops trading (be it financial stop or a retirement)

            Also, if that’s the case how can a customer find the appropriate locksmith to make a copy?

            It will either be embossed into the key head or stamped in lettering. If you want a restricted key cut, you will need to be the signatory for that key system.

            There is a lot more to restricted key systems than I can explain here, but basically, if you want to know some more about them, you can read about it here

            • [Deactivated] on 17/07/2021 - 11:34

              @pegaxs: Nice to know…. So what if I (not a locksmith) had access to a lathe and made a copy of a restricted key ?

              (Not trespassing or breaking into anywhere I'm not allowed).

              • pegaxs on 17/07/2021 - 16:17

                @[Deactivated]: I would say that you don't know a lot about lathes nor cutting keys.

                As I said, it's the blanks that are the issue. You cant just go to Bunnings and buy a blank restricted key to cut your own profile onto it. You couldn't go to a locksmith and buy a blank restricted key. Hell, the local Bi-Lock distributor in my area wouldn't even sell me a part for a Bi-Lock that wasn't even part of the key OR the barrel, it just bolted to the barrel.

                And put it this way, let's say you have all the tools and plenty of time at your disposal to make a copy of a restricted key, you are basically making a copy of a mechanical password/PIN. Ok, the cops might not care at that moment, but if something were to happen to the property you made a key for and the key that you made was used to illegally enter the property, you would be liable, as you are not the owner of that key system, locksmith or not.

                It's a bit like asking… "So, if I had access to a lathe, can I make a copy of a gun? (I'm not going to point it at anyone or shoot it)". Sure you can, but should you?

                Also, not my neg btw…

            • misterpotatomato on 18/07/2021 - 08:12

              @pegaxs: Interestingly, just on the network administrator thing and obscurity, security through obscurity is specifically advised against.

  • hikaru78 on 15/07/2021 - 13:25
    +8

    my guess is its an apartment and part of a registered key system. The key can be used to get into all the communal areas…

    $300 is cheap

    That being said if you they are only replacing the oval cylinder in the unit you could probably pickup the cylinder and keys from the registered locksmith for around $100. Alot of paperwork needs to be done though. Oval cylinders can be swapped out in minutes

  • bobbified on 15/07/2021 - 13:29
    +3

    Why can't you just get other key cut? If someone picks up the lost key, how would they know where it fits? Especially if that lock is also secured by lifts where an access card is required (like an apartment building).

    They're usually serial numbered and the specific locksmith has the key design already so they don't need a physical key to make a copy.

  • screensaver on 15/07/2021 - 13:36

    See if contents insurance covers it, or landlord insurance.

    • brendanm on 15/07/2021 - 13:46
      +6

      Oh Pam, why should the landlord have to pay for the tenants mistake?

      • screensaver on 15/07/2021 - 13:53

        the contents insurance is paid by the tenants

        • thatonethere on 15/07/2021 - 16:07
          +4

          must be magical insurance which has $0 excess…

        • brendanm on 15/07/2021 - 17:12

          Landlord insurance isn't. Contents insurance also has an excess as mentioned.

  • CyberMurning on 15/07/2021 - 13:55
    +1

    tell them. you pay or you go

    • yjun355 on 15/07/2021 - 14:05

      so if there is dispute, this goes to bond dispute?

      • Switchblade88 on 15/07/2021 - 14:16
        +1

        If you have a valid outstanding claim at end of lease, sure (see my comment above)

      • parsimonious one on 16/07/2021 - 18:07

        Based on the wording of the standard lease agreement it would seem you’ll have trouble claiming for lock replacement when the relevant clause specifically says you can only charge for a replacement key

  • morse on 15/07/2021 - 14:06
    +6

    It’s a bit strange that you don’t have a spare key. If I was the tenant I would expect to have to pay for a spare key but not replace locks. Can you go halves with the tenant?

    • yjun355 on 15/07/2021 - 14:44
      +14

      Its not about spare key. There are plenty and more can be made. But its obligation as landlord. Its the retricted key and If there is future robbery and one key is accounted, then insurance can deny claim. Additionally, landlords are liable to provide secure premise to future tenants.

      • morse on 15/07/2021 - 15:32
        +6

        That does make sense. I think you’ll have trouble getting them to pay for the lock replacement. If you can get them to agree to half you’ll be lucky and they’ll be more careful in the future!

      • bobbified on 15/07/2021 - 17:06
        +4

        The locks are not impossible to open without the actual key.

        So if the insurance company is going to rely on an unaccounted for key to deny a claim, they would at least have to prove (on the balance of probability) that the unaccounted for key was used to open the door in the first place.

        Twice I've had to call a locksmith to unlock my doors in two separate apartments and both times they didn't need to pick or drill the lock. They simply removed the external cover and there was already a hole drilled (I would assume the locksmith called by the previous tenants or owners) where they were able to stick a hook in to reach the bypass latch.

        IMO, the whole registered key thing is such a scam. There are no benefits to the owners/tenants whatsoever. The only "benefit", if you'd call it that, is they get to experience getting bent over each time they need a new key.

        • DoctorCalculon on 15/07/2021 - 21:11

          where they were able to stick a hook in to reach the bypass latch.

          This almost sounds like child's play. How would you even rate such locks as secure?

          • bobbified on 16/07/2021 - 10:44

            @DoctorCalculon: It seems like someone has previously called a locksmith to open the lock and they drilled a small hole to access the latch. When they were done, they just put the cover back on so it just looks like a normal lock and not visible to opportunistic thieves.

            With everything, if someone is determined to get in, they'd find a way regardless of whether that hole was already there or not.

            Someone could pick the lock with traditional pick set if they knew what they were doing.

        • pegaxs on 17/07/2021 - 16:34

          IMO, the whole registered key thing is such a scam. There are no benefits to the owners/tenants whatsoever.

          There is a time and a place for restricted keying systems. Factories, warehouses, schools, government buildings, local council, etc etc, I agree with, but when it comes to residential, there is no need for a $3,000 restricted key system on an average house. I know of a few houses in my area that I have been called to for lockouts and have to tell them they need to get the installing locksmith to fix the issue and that locksmith may be 1 ~ 2 hours away.

          As a starting out, relatively new locksmith, I always put in tenders for large scale systems with restricted key systems, because you only need one or two of these systems in your account to know it's a captured market and that they can only come to you. It would be like being an electrician and installing power points that only you had the plugs for.

          On a huge premises with lots of employees and lots of locks, you want full control of your system, who has the keys, what they can access or what they can do with the keys (much like spending lots on IT and protecting your whole IT infrastructure). On a house where you and your partner have the only keys, it's waste of money.

      • parsimonious one on 16/07/2021 - 17:23
        +3

        That sounds like bollocks excuses.

        I guarantee if you lost one of the keys you wouldn’t be changing the locks, just get another key cut and move on

      • Aureus on 16/07/2021 - 17:37

        Guessing the locksmith who wants to charge you $300 to change the locks gave you that advice?

    • trustnoone on 15/07/2021 - 15:15
      +8

      Not a lawyer or anything but this is what I'd assume as well, OP has said they're using the NSW Gov standard tenant agreement as well. The one I see has:

      32.The landlord agrees:
      …..
      32.2 to give each tenant under this agreement a copy of the key or opening device or information to open any lock or security device for the residential premises or common property to which the tenant is entitled to have access, and
      32.3 not to charge the tenant for the cost of providing the copies except to recover the cost of replacement or additional copies, and …
      https://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/00…

      Assuming OP didn't delete it before it was signed off. I understand it as OP should have an original key and can charge the tenant to make a copy. Without that, its just going to come down to what you and the tenant agrees on I'd guess if you have nothing in the agreement about it even if we feel OP is in the right.

      • yjun355 on 15/07/2021 - 15:42
        +12

        Thanks. Thats exactly what i was looking for. As you pointed out its the 32.3 clause which covers it. I spoke to NSW Fair Trading and they advised that for security, there is obligation to change the locks and tenants need to cover it.

        • Seraphin7 on 15/07/2021 - 15:54
          +10

          Well there you have it.

          End thread.

          • parsimonious one on 16/07/2021 - 17:58
            +1

            @Seraphin7: Hardly.

            The written advice directly contradicts what the OP says he was told.

            The written clauses clearly stated the OP would be responsible for providing a copy of the key, not that the OP is entitled to charge for replacing locks

        • macfudd on 15/07/2021 - 20:40
          +1

          Not disputing NSW Fair Trading, but I feel like if it was a legal requirement for tenants to change the locks when they lost a key we'd have had a lot more ozbargain threads on this by now.

          • parsimonious one on 16/07/2021 - 17:25
            +1

            @macfudd: Agreed

            Plus the cited section clearly says the landlord can simply provide a copy. It doesn’t say if the key is lost, for security, the locks need to be replaced

        • Boogerman on 16/07/2021 - 19:11

          Not in a million years would a legal member of Fair Trading had have advised that the tenant is responsible. Customer service ‘advice’ means diddly squat
          That said, my guess is you misrepresented the scenario to their customer service

  • fullmetal on 15/07/2021 - 15:46

    Where is the poll??

  • netjock on 15/07/2021 - 17:07
    +1

    Tenants are hilarious. If you gave them a pile of spare keys they are not going to lose it like confetti.

    • brendanm on 15/07/2021 - 17:13
      +1

      What.

      • netjock on 15/07/2021 - 17:20
        +3

        Tenant argument that if they known it was that expensive they be careful

        So if the keys were effectively free they would be throwing them at the crowds on the side of the street.

  • Snake 4 on 15/07/2021 - 17:12
    +1

    If the lock is changed every owner/tenant in the building would also need a new key.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join