Dear Nathan

Ken Evans, Securistyle, (The Glazine 27.09.11) takes me to task for misleading door manufacturers and the public by suggesting that nothing is being done to protect homeowners from the problem of lock snapping. I would ask him, and others jumping on the bandwagon, to re-read my letter.

My letter details asking the chief constable of West Yorkshire, August 2011, whether recommending standards and not products has hindered progress in stopping this method of attack. It also points out the Chief Constable believed the existing kitemark covered snapping, which it clearly didn’t. Even SBD is still recommending the EN1303 standard on its website www.securedbydesign.com/aware/locks.aspx despite Sold Secure Diamond – a test that does include snapping – having tested products available.
 
Ken says the industry has been collaborating on a solution for existing doors that can be clearly understood by the general public, and describes the recently launched TS007 standard and its ‘kitemark’ star rating system. Clearly understood? I disagree. At its core, the star rating system is confusing and the opportunity for mis-selling is great. It shouldn’t be down to consumers to check that the cylinder has the new Kitemark, and if it is used in combination with additional security measures that it meets the required three star rating. Policing to ensure the correct combination is fitted will only occur if the wrong product is fitted or mis-sold and a burglary takes place. Remember, if burglars know how – and increasingly they do as the public and frontline Police know only too well – they can enter in under a minute.
 
The ‘industry’ of door manufacturers has a robust testing procedure, as Ken points out, PAS024:2011. Why he mentions this in response to a letter about a retro fit problem though, I don’t know! However I would also say that the vast majority of doors made today for domestic replacement have cheap handles and locks fitted, so while there is a great deal of ‘support’ for TS007 and concern for secure door products in the retro fit market, as there is no legal requirement to sell or fit a secure door, unfortunately PAS024 does not carry through to the volume of domestic installations carried out, making the potential snapping problem worse! If the industry cannot police its own manufacturers how can it attempt to influence the myriad of frontline lock changers?
 
With regard to industry collaboration, as this is a retro-fit standard, not a manufactured door standard, I note that the industry experts in retro fitting locks, the Master Locksmiths Association, are not mentioned in Ken’s list of supporting bodies – a significant omission.
 
The new standard suits certain hardware manufacturers, who stand to lose a great deal if, perish the thought, we solve a cylinder problem by beefing up the cylinder, but it is not ideal for the retrofit market where the problem lies. Each installation requires a different approach and the locksmith or installer carrying out the work won’t know what type of door it is or what locks, cylinders or handles are on it. It requires a simple solution. Unfortunately, I feel we have all allowed TS007 to develop into a war of manufacturers, and all involved have come away from a standard that, reflects the attack methods used, is easy for the installer to deliver and gives the public simple, understandable advice.
 
As someone who has been at the heart of this problem for three years, knows the real MOs, has regular meetings with locksmiths, frontline police and other services, and victims of this exact crime, I don’t say nothing is being done; just nothing sensible for the retrofit problem.
 
Yours sincerely
Steve Stewart
Managing Director, ABS Secure