Some decisions can come back to haunt you, especially when you fail to see the bigger picture.

So, what would you do if you were a landlord given the chance to keep high-end upgrades in your building at no extra cost? Would you see the opportunity? Or would you stick to the rules, even if it meant losing out in the long run?

In the following story, one landlord refuses to compromise, and his building pays the price. Here’s what happened.

Landlord demands building be restored, so air-con and fine reception is ripped out

For a long time, I worked at a well-respected and expensive consulting business that was renting an office. They’d spent good money installing air-con and making the reception area pretty decent, as well as other work like interior walls, shelving, high-quality decor, etc.

When the tenant company wanted to move out, the contract said they had to restore the building back as it was, but they asked the landlord to allow them to walk away and not return the building back to the more basic shell it had been, which would have meant leaving the aircon in and not having to remove the fancy reception area, (re)move walls, partitions, shelving, etc.

This would have been a win-win for both parties.

The building was harder to rent as an empty shell with no air conditioning.

For some reason, the landlord said no, and despite attempts to persuade them, they were adamant. The tenant said OK, and ripped everything out, including 10’s of 1000’s of aircon, leaving the landlord with an empty shell again, which proved harder to rent out and attracted lower rent. The building was empty for quite a while.

About four years later, I worked there when another company had leased it. The building was horribly hot in summer because of the lack of air-con, and the reception looked cheap and nasty, nowhere near as nice as it had been. The offices were carpeted, but obviously, the cheapest stuff was fitted.

I told my new employer that the building had been much nicer and had aircon, and they were stunned that the stupid landlord had wasted the opportunity!

Wow! Talk about a short-sighted decision.

Let’s see how the readers over at Reddit relate to this story.

Great point.

This also makes sense.

Exactly, the former tenant removing it makes it easier for the landlord.

Yet another person who points at liability as the reasoning.

A painful lesson learned!

If you liked that post, check out this one about an employee that got revenge on HR when they refused to reimburse his travel.