A Guide to the LPS 1654 Standard for Padlocks

LPS 1654 is a padlock security testing standard produced by the Loss Prevention Certification Board (LPCB). The LPCB is part of the BRE Group, which develops testing and certification standards used across construction, fire safety and security. LPS 1654 focuses specifically on how long it takes to compromise a padlock using real-world attack tools and methods, rather than only testing its technical specifications in a laboratory.

The standard aims to replicate the kinds of attacks a padlock may encounter in practical use, such as forced entry on gates, sheds, substations, warehouses, containers or marine access points. Because of this, the test attempts to measure how long a determined attacker can be delayed.

How LPS 1654 Differs From Other Padlock Standards

Unlike standards such as BS EN 12320, Sold Secure and CEN Grades (EN 12320 Annex A), LPS 1654 grades padlocks primarily by attack time using real tools. BS EN and CEN focus on controlled laboratory strength testing (pull force, shackle cutting resistance, impact testing etc.). LPS 1654 attempts to simulate the real world: what thieves actually do.

In theory, this makes it a very useful rating system. However, there are important limitations, which we will cover below.

Security Levels

LPS 1654 includes 8 security levels. Each level uses a defined tool set, starting with basic hand tools and progressing to heavy-duty mechanical and power tools.

Below is a simplified reference:

Tool Set to Level Mapping (Approximate)

Note: Actual definitions vary. See the full LPS 1654 documentation for exact tool set lists and timings.

Key Strength of the Standard

The idea of testing padlocks with real attack tools is excellent. It moves security ratings closer to practical outcomes: how long will this padlock meaningfully delay someone trying to break it?

However — The Standard Has Major Limitations

1. Human variability in testing
   Two different testers could produce significantly different results. While testing must be performed by licensed LPCB facilities (not self-certified), the lack of strict repeatability makes consistent grading difficult.

2. Very few padlocks are certified
   Because of the cost, complexity and uncertain market demand, only a handful of padlock brands have submitted products for testing. As of the last major market review, only two manufacturers had active LPS-certified models.

3. Ratings do not always align with real-world padlock performance
   For example, a CEN Grade 4 padlock (widely accepted as high-security for commercial gates and site access) may only achieve Level 2 under LPS 1654 due to requirements around key differs and mechanism complexity.

This has led to situations where the strongest padlocks available (e.g., Abloy Protec2, ABUS Granit Series) achieve only Level 3.

Mechanism Differ Counts

LPS 1654 also includes minimum key differ (unique key code) requirements, which can restrict padlocks that are extremely strong but do not support high differ counts. This means:
A physically unbreakable lock may score lower than a weaker lock with a high differ count.

This has frustrated many manufacturers and buyers.

Practical Conclusion

LPS 1654 is thoughtful in principle and valuable for real-world attack modelling. However:

• It is uneven in how it scores padlocks.

• Certification is costly and rarely pursued.

• Ratings do not yet align well with normal industry understanding of “high security”.

For now, the most widely accepted padlock security standards remain:

• CEN Grades (EN 12320 Annex A) – used across Europe

• Sold Secure – widely recognised in insurance / vehicle / bike / motorcycle

• BS EN 12320 – baseline compliance quality standard