Common Misconceptions About Key Holding

Myth vs Reality A quick look at the biggest misconceptions about key holding. Learn why strict key-control procedures are always essential, why familiarity with a property never replaces proper authorisation, and how following clear key-holding protocols keeps people safer, protects assets, and ensures smooth, accountable access every time.

Myth	The Truth / Evidence	Explanation
Only managers can hold keys.	Policy allows any trained, authorised staff member to be a key holder.	Key-holding roles are based on training and vetting, not job title, to ensure adequate coverage.
Key holding means staff can enter premises anytime.	Key holders must follow strict call-out procedures and designated response windows.	Authorised access is controlled by a roster and escalation protocol, not personal convenience.
Key holding equals being a security guard.	Key holding is a standalone service focusing on alarm response and key custody, not active patrolling.	Guards perform monitored patrols; key holders respond only when alarms activate or per arranged visits.
All keys must be stored in staff lockers.	Policy requires secure, centrally audited key cabinets with restricted access.	Personal lockers lack audit trails; dedicated cabinets ensure traceability and accountability.
If keys are lost, it only affects the individual.	Loss triggers immediate incident reporting, rekeying costs, and potential security breach protocols.	A lost key risks entire site security, so organisational measures and costs are invoked.
Key holding is optional for effective security.	Effective 24/7 security systems integrate key holding as a core element per regulatory guidance (CQC security standards).	Omitting key holding weakens alarm response and emergency access, undermining overall security.
Using one master key for all doors is safe.	Master-keying contravenes least-privilege principles; policy mandates key segregation.	Segregated keys limit risk if one is compromised, ensuring breach remains compartmentalised.