A landlord who sought more than €1,800 after claiming a “chunk” had been taken out of a “fine dining table” at her apartment in Dublin 4 has been permitted to retain a portion of a tenant’s deposit.
The furniture at the centre of the dispute was a glass top dining table purchased by landlord Deirdre Power from Roche Bobois in 2010 at a cost of €5,240, a Residential Tenancies Board tribunal heard.
Benjamin Peacock, who rented the apartment on Sydney Parade Avenue from Ms Power, claimed damage to the table was a “nick” that measured 2cm by 1cm.
He told the tribunal the damage was “tiny” compared with the overall length of the table, which was “very large” and could seat eight people.
READ MORE
Mr Peacock believed the damage may have been caused when the table was moved, but said it was “accidental and not malicious”.
He claimed the table was “at the upper limit of its lifespan”, arguing it would be unfair to ask him to pay for the full cost of replacing the glass top as the damage was “minimal.”
He told the tribunal he rented the property for more than five years and looked after it to a “very high standard”.
David Power, who spoke on behalf of Ms Power, said the damage caused was “more than a nick” and would be more properly described as a “chunk”.
He told the tribunal Ms Power was seeking the price of the replacement glass (€1,875) and was not including the cost of transport, labour or time in organising this replacement.
While accepting it was accidental, he described the Roche Bobois “golden gate” table as a “fine dining table” that they had placed in their “luxury let”.
Mr Power said the table top was “high-spec” glass, which would not weaken over time, adding that only force could cause damage to it.
He denied that the table top could be repaired, and while damage could be smoothed out, this would only be a “temporary fix”.
The tribunal was told Mr Peacock “would have been aware” of the value of the table, with Ms Power arguing that the damage could not be described as “fair wear and tear”.
Mr Peacock argued the apartment was a rental property that Ms Power had “furnished in a manner of her choosing”, saying he had not asked for the dining table, nor had he been made aware of its value.
The tribunal permitted Ms Power to retain €750 of Mr Peacock’s €2,500 deposit for damage in excess of ordinary wear and tear, saying she was not entitled to the full costs of “restoring or replacing old items for new items”.
It accepted that not all damage must be accepted as normal wear and tear, but said imposing the entire cost of replacing the glass on Mr Peacock would be “disproportionate”.
