Accountability
Corrections
This page exists so that "we correct our mistakes" is a thing you can check rather than a thing we claim. Every correction stays here permanently, including the ones that make us look careless.
Found something wrong? Please tell us. Useful reports include the page address, what specifically is wrong, and if you have one, a source showing the correct position. A trade body, a regulator, legislation or an insurer's own wording carries far more weight than any blog, ours included.
We would rather be corrected by somebody in the trade than be politely wrong for a year. If you are a locksmith, an insurer, a Trading Standards officer or an adviser and we have misdescribed something you deal with daily, we want to hear it — even bluntly.
corrections@24hlondonlocksmith.com
That address forwards to a person and nowhere else. It is not a mailing list, it is not sold, and nothing is signed up to. It is for errors on this site — it is not a locksmith callout number.
What we will do
- Fix the page. Not a footnote — the actual text.
- Change the "updated" date so readers can see it happened.
- Log it here, with what it said before and what it says now.
- Say who raised it, if they are happy to be named. Anonymous is fine too.
What we will not do
- Quietly edit a claim and pretend it always said that.
- Remove a correction because it is embarrassing.
- Change a factual position because a company asked us to. Bring evidence and we will change it for that reason instead.
The log
2026-09-22
Does having a safe reduce your home insurance?
Was The page printed example cash and valuables figures for Eurograde 0, 1 and 3 safes, and called the ten-times valuables rule one "used right across the industry".
Now The figures came from safe retailers’ pages via search summaries and we could not trace them to the standard, so the table is removed. The ten-times rule is now described as a rule of thumb commonly published by safe makers and sellers, to be confirmed with your own insurer.
Claude, on a sourcing review the same day, before any reader reported it.
2026-09-22
Does a key safe affect your home insurance?
Was The page said flatly: "No body approves key safes for insurance the way the Association of Insurance Surveyors approves money safes."
Now We had not proved a negative. It now says we could not trace the phrase to any scheme and found no such body.
Claude, on a sourcing review the same day, before any reader reported it.
2026-09-17
Does a key safe affect your home insurance?
Was The page called key safes "the single most common way people quietly weaken their home security and their insurance cover", and stated three times, including in the page description, that "most key safes sold in the UK" do not hold police approval.
Now Neither claim about how common something is remains. The page says the mechanism is real but that we have no figures on how often it happens and will not invent any, and that Secured by Design approval is held by a short list of named models which the page lists, so readers should check their model against that list. Both of the old statements were claims about the market that we had never measured. Naming the approved models is checkable; a share of the market is not, and this site asks readers to hold it to sourced claims.
Claude, after an external SEO and editorial review flagged the unsupported prevalence claims.
2026-09-17
Machine-readable summary at /llms.txt
Was The llms.txt file stated flatly: "No advertising, affiliates, sponsorship or referral fees." The about page said something different: taking a fee or commission from a locksmith is ruled out, but if the site ever carried advertising it would be labelled as advertising.
Now The llms.txt line matches the about page. It states what is true today, dated, keeps the permanent ban on taking money from any locksmith, and says any other change would be labelled on the page and logged here. Two pages on the same site made different promises about money. The conditional one is the honest one, so the absolute one was corrected rather than the other way round.
Claude, after an external SEO and editorial review found the contradiction.
2026-09-07
Was The page said the ticked boxes "are just for you, nothing is saved or sent anywhere".
Now It says what actually happens: the ticks are kept in your browser so the page survives a reload, and nothing is sent to us or anybody else. The second half of the old sentence was true. The first half was not, and the privacy page did not mention it either. Both are fixed.
Claude, during a structured audit of both sites.
2026-09-07
Was The privacy page described the site as writing nothing to your device.
Now It has a section naming the one thing that is written — the checklist ticks, in your browser only. A privacy page that omits the single item it exists to disclose is the worst kind of error we can make, because that page is the one a reader cannot check any other way.
Claude, during a structured audit of both sites.
2026-09-07
What a locksmith costs in London
Was It said the price check tool and the prices article "read the same figures from one file, so they cannot drift apart".
Now Corrected: the price check and the now-or-morning tool share that file. The table in the article is written by hand and does not read it. Claude wrote the false sentence earlier the same day while rebuilding this page, and an audit caught it hours later.
Claude, during a structured audit of both sites.
2026-09-07
What a London locksmith should actually cost
Was The second column of the price table was headed "Typical night, weekend or bank holiday", which priced a Saturday at the full small-hours rate — roughly £120–£250 for a simple lockout. Our own tools put a Saturday in the evening band at roughly £90–£190.
Now The column is headed "night, Sunday or bank holiday", matching the figures underneath it and the tools, and a note says plainly that an evening or a Saturday sits between the two columns. Publishing two different prices for the same job on the same site is exactly the confusion this page exists to remove.
Claude, during a structured audit of both sites.
2026-09-07
Does a key safe affect your home insurance?
Was The citation fix logged for this page earlier today shipped without moving the visible updated date on that page, so the page still read "Updated 30 August" while the log said it changed on 7 September.
Now The updated date is 7 September. We promise on this page to move that date whenever we correct something, and we did not. The in-body "Checked 27 August 2026" line is deliberately unchanged: that is when the sources were last verified, and they were not re-verified today.
Claude, during a structured audit of both sites.
2026-09-07
Does a key safe affect your home insurance?
Was The BBC citation pointed at feeds.bbci.co.uk, which is the RSS host and returns a 404 for article addresses.
Now Points at www.bbc.co.uk. The article was always real and the reporting was always as described; the link to it was not. The same fault was fixed on the sister site.
Claude, during an external link audit of both sites.
2026-09-07
Was This page asked readers three times to report errors and gave no address to send them to.
Now It publishes [email protected]. A page whose whole purpose is that accountability is checkable rather than claimed should not have been the page making an unkeepable promise.
Claude, after Aurel asked whether the sites needed email set up.
2026-08-30
Does a key safe affect your home insurance?
Was Titled "Key safes and home insurance: what actually affects a claim" — itself a correction made on 27 August.
Now Retitled again to a plain question. The substance is unchanged; this is a second pass on the same page. Logged because the page has now been retitled twice in four days and readers who saw either earlier version should be able to see why.
Claude, during an analysis of why some pages were being found in search and this one was not.
2026-08-27
Was The headline said a key safe "may be voiding your insurance", and the summary stated that a non-approved key safe can invalidate a claim.
Now Retitled, and the claim rewritten to say plainly that this is policy-specific: some insurers may refuse, others may not, and only your own wording settles it. The original phrasing was more certain than the sources support.
Raised in an external review of the site.
2026-08-27
What a London locksmith should actually cost
Was Published price bands with no statement of where the figures came from.
Now Added a methodology section saying exactly how the bands were derived, and stating clearly that we have not run our own survey.
Raised in an external review of the site.
A note on what this page is not. It is not a complaints route for a locksmith who overcharged you — we are not a locksmith and cannot act on your behalf. For that, see how to report an overcharging locksmith. This page is only for errors in what we have written.