That's almost always a requirement; building management has a legitimate need for immediate access in case of a malfunction (burst water pipe, for example) or similar emergency. Obviously, it is management's responsibility to prevent the key from being used for any other purpose, but there are ways to manage that; we've discussed that in this very newsgroup.
I agree: Individual apartment locks should never be masterkeyed; there's no good reason to do so and more than sufficient good reason not to.
I am going to disagree with that statement... I will admit that masterkeyed apartment locks are more vulnerable to abuse both by keyholders and thiose attempting to gain illicit entry... But it is an apartrment, not owned by the tenant... This means that there is a person or business that is responsible for the entire building that could need access at any time for your above mentioned emergency situations, but also for periodic inspections (sometimes surprise board of health spotchecks) and in the event of a fire condition the fire department will knock down doors if they have to fiddle with too many keys in order to get them open...
A better security lock would be fine to be master keyed in an apartment complex... Several types are available that would also offer key control at the same time without the need for a Medeco cylinder on every apartment door...
Evan, ~~formerly a maintenance man, now a college student
Not in germany. Without your knowledge absolutely nobody is allowed to enter, and in case of an emergency no one waits for the owner or a building manager, they (usually the fire brigade) just use forceful entry, observed by the police to be sure that everything goes according to the laws.
"Periodic spot checks" require the tenant's permission in most cases. Apartments are NOT like schools or commercial spaces in this regard.
The fire department will indeed bust down doors, and expects to do so.
There are some known issues that would cause me to hesitate even when adequate pick resistance is maintained. Similar concerns apply to dual-key systems.
Apartments just aren't the same scenario you were used to dealing with, and the optimal solution is different as a result.
Perhaps in your state that might be the case but eminent domain has been deicded over the years in Massachuseets to include "unannounced" safety inspections, and the board of health inspectors can show up anytime during business hours and request to see any part of any premises...
As a renter in an apartment you do have certain rights, but keeping the owner and/or his/her representatives locked out is not one of them...
Not really... They prefer to open the door using a master key, as it takes less time and their personnel are less likely to be injuried while doing so... I have personally observed legal disputes where a tenant thought they had the legal right to change a lock and did so, and then had to pay for the replacement of the door after a fire in a neighboring unit made the fire department break the door in because the master key didn't open their door...
What are those issues ??? I know of an apartment complex in my area that had problems with things disappearing from units, so they went off a master key system... With 600 units after only a year they choose new hardware and several different patented keyways because having the staff sign out keys to the different units was taking up too much time... Any system adequately designed with proper key control will do fine in any environment... Just have a bit more creativity and don't utilize a widely available keyway that the tenants or employees can obtain duplicate keys from the local Wal*Mart... Also a 6 or 7 pin lock is more desirable than a 5 pin one...
Not really real estate management is the same no matter what the occupancy is... I agree that less people should have access to master keys for a residential complex than a commercial one, however apartments are high density occupied spaces and therefore safety concerns of allowing public safety personnel the ability to enter all units in an orderly manner in the event of an emergency will win the argument hands-down every time... I can think orf several other instances in which the management might need to enter in circumstances that aren't quite emergent but don't allow enough time to call a tenant in advance... If that tenant keeps their contact information up to date (which many both commercial and residential don't)...
Evan, ~~formerly a maintenance man, now a college student
I don't know about that. California tenant. It is always put in the lease that the owner can inspect 1x/yr and can enter without notice in an emergency situation (Broken pipe). However the tenant can order, in writing that all visits, for any purpose (except emergency) that the owner give 24 hour notice. And unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease, the landlord has no right to inspect the inside of your apartment. If what you are saying is true then it would never be put into the lease as it would be the law.
I can not speak for California law... I specifically mentioned Massachusetts in my post...
Also I suggest you research "eminent domain" and you will discover that the OWNER of any premises has the right to enter for various purposes unannounced within reasonable limits...
A tenant has some protection under the lease, but that does not allow them (at least where I am from) the priviledge to deny the landlord's agents access...
Also I would like to know how you would receive
24 hours advance notice for a suprise inspection from the board of health or building inspector ???
Evan, ~~formerly a maintenance man, now a college student
When's the last time either did a surprise inspection inside an apartment? (My father's apartment probably wouldn't have passed BOH, but he refused to let the landlord inspect and was within his rights under NY law.)
I'm not inclined to post this observation in a public newsgroup, but you've been involved here long enough that you *ought* to know what I'm referring to.
Restricted keyway is an absolute minimum requirement. Which drives cost up.
I'm not current on exactly what the MA rules are; last time I was looking at this it was in NY. I should check that, actually, since I'm considering buying rental property.
Reminder: A landlord's legitimate requirements can be fully addressed by a set of duplicate keys kept in a safe. Preferably in tamper-evident packaging so there's no question of whether those keys were used without authorization.
Costs more than a master key system? Sure. More secure? Much. More flexible? Much -- tenants can use whatever cylinder system they like as long as they supply that duplicate key.
Apartments are a different problem than offices/schools and call for a different solution. Tools for tasks. That's why this is an engineering discipline rather than a science.
I _know_ in CA that is not correct. In your state it maybe different, but my tenant experience is limited to CA. No one gets in without my permission And the part in the lease is me agreeing to it. I can always refuse to sign it and look for another apartment. BTW "eminent domain" refers to the government taking over a private citizens property. IE- The government would take over the landlord's building, have to buy out my lease and pay for my moving expenses. A few grand can also be had for the inconvience and stress of the tenant.
It does here. And landlord and landlord's agent's, such as the plumber, real estate agent, electrician, etc. are all the same person in this discussion. The landlord. And if any of them violate my rights, the landlord is responsible.
As a private residence, it is up to me if I want to allow them, or anyone in. And, if I choose, 24 hour notice must be personally served to me, in writing. I would not answer the door for a person I didn't know.
Also, the 24 hour period for entrance may only take place during normal business hours. M-F, 8-5. If I don't want to get served, I simply don't open the door to be served :). It's easy to screw the landlord out of a months rent because if he's a prick - he can't rent what he can't show.
On top of that, if a landlord violates that, they can be sued for up to $2,000 per incidence. In CA the penalties are very high for landlords who think they 'own' the property that they lease out. It belongs to the tenant, until he moves.
No it isn't... The government may inspect any facility it desires at any time it desires... If you refuse to allow the public health authrorities entrance they may just decide to declare the entire structure unfit for human habitation and have you forcibly removed by the fire department / police department and the unit boarded up...
Heh... This isn't a process server you are avoiding, if you don't let the health inspector or the building inspector inside they can just close the entire building by declaring it unsafe and boarding it up after you are removed... You might also be criminally charged with obstructing a public official in the process of carrying out their work...
Evan, ~~formerly a maintenance man, now a college student
I claim that I am able to compromise 90 % of all the masterkey systems around here in relatively short time, just from disassembling and decoding my own lock and being able to glance at some change keys or even the masterkey.
And I do this just for sports purpose, or for demonstration of the lack of security; not to imagine what someone with a bad attitude could do with such a key.
My last effort was a 7pin-GMK-System with some 1000 locks. First cylinder gave around 400 combinations, second one reduced this to 200, third one left 4 possible GMK combinations. These cylinders where lowest level, accessible to almost all legitimate change key owners in the building, and in places where no one would have missed the lock when it was taken out for one working day (inner door of a toilet, cleaning utilities room, unused emergency exit). Knowing the not public available internal rules of the lock manufacturer (just from observing their way of MKing) I could guess the most likely one, and it was the right one. Showed up at the responsible guy, locked his office from inside with my key and told him where to put his "great security concept". It was a pleasure to see the look on his face, and the despare getting more and more visible while we strolled through the complex to prove that the key opened every single lock. What a pity not being able to observe his meeting with his boss who had encouraged an security audit.
I have two neighbours who hate each other - was thinking about a system with a split key, and each of them gets only one half of the key :-) Should have been a good measure against misuse, but I finally decided not to to so. In an emergency they just kan kick it in, and it is OK for me.
Ever hear of the Bill of Rights? Un-reasonable search comes to mind. Get a court order to get in. And you would have to show actual cause for entrence to the judge. And as for "boarding it up" - what does the tenant care? He just doesn't pay the last months rent and moves down the block. It's no loss to the tenant.
Yes it is. I don't know what you got taught your school, but anyone serving a subpoena, notice, or anything else is a process server. And the manner it is to be served is also codified.
College student is right. Get educated about the subject before you run your mouth. Or at the very least read a book on the subject.
That's a good question. I would say that the landlord is responsible as it is real property, and attached to the building. However, in knocking down a vase the tenant would be responsible for the vase, as it is his property. That's my guess. My only fire covered me (my insurance) being responsible for everything, as I was the entire owner of the building and contents.
You should see the people out here in CA. With all the rain and a lot of them building in un-safe areas, along with cities that don't maintain drainage. The insurance companies are just walking away and calling it an act of god. They have to pay nothing. And we're talking 5-6 million dollar homes being flushed. Nothing like seeing some rich bitch standing in mud up to her knees :)
I have heard of the Bill of Rights, the fourth amendment only applies to evidence that is intended to be used for a criminal trial... A public health inspector or a building inspector or fire chief doesn't need to obtain a court order to inspect anything, it is a built-in function of their position and such actions are within the scope of their authority... I would not obstruct any of those above listed officials, as you can be arrested for obstruction of a public official if you prevent them from carrying out their job responsibilities...
A public health inspector doesn't need to serve you notice in order to inspect your premises... All they have to do is show up on your doorstep and ask to be let in... Again, if you don't let them in and you want a court order, you will probably be arrested for obstructing the public officials when it gets there...
I suggest that you re-read the Code of Regulations in whatever state you live in carefully... Again, you are the one whom is in error as far as your "Bill of Rights" argument, it only applies to searches made looking for evidence to be used in a criminal prosecution, it by no means protects you (or in your argument allows you to prevent an authorized public official from inspecting your property to ensure your safety and the safety of the public around you) from safety inspections...
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.