A Burned Worktop and a Disputed Bill: How One Tenancy Damage Dispute Was Settled

Illustrative case study. This is a fictionalised example created to show how a dispute can move through a structured process. The people, property and details are invented. It is not a real case and does not describe any real person.

Background

Dana rented a two-bedroom flat from Marcus for three years. When she moved out, Marcus proposed deducting the cost of replacing a kitchen worktop, which he said had a large burn mark and deep cuts. Dana agreed the worktop was marked, but said much of the damage was there when she moved in.

Stage 1: Report

Marcus submitted a structured report describing:

• The tenancy dates and the property
• The damage: a burn mark about 10 cm wide and several deep knife cuts
• The cost claimed: a full replacement worktop

What the report did not do: it did not change Dana's RR Score. A report is a first-hand account, not a finding.

Stage 2: Evidence

Marcus attached:

• Check-out photos showing the burn and cuts
• A replacement quote
• The check-in inventory

The check-in inventory recorded the worktop as "good condition, minor surface scratches near sink".

Stage 3: Response

Dana responded. She:

• Accepted that the burn mark happened during her tenancy — a hot pan placed down by mistake
• Disputed the cuts, attaching her own move-in photos showing several cuts near the sink
• Pointed out the worktop was already around twelve years old at the start of the tenancy
• Proposed contributing towards a repair rather than a full replacement

Stage 4: Resolution

With both accounts and all evidence side by side, the key facts became clear:

1. The burn mark was tenant damage — accepted by Dana.
2. Most of the cuts pre-dated the tenancy — supported by Dana's move-in photos and consistent with "minor surface scratches" in the inventory.
3. A full new worktop would have improved on the original twelve-year-old one.

The parties agreed that Dana would pay for a professional repair of the burned section, and the rest of the deposit was returned. The Resolution recorded a partial agreement: one part of the claim accepted, the rest not.

What the record shows afterwards

• For Dana: a tenant who accepted responsibility for accidental damage, supported her position with evidence and settled promptly.
• For Marcus: a landlord who raised a legitimate issue, provided evidence and accepted a fair outcome.

Only because the dispute reached a completed Resolution did it become eligible to be considered under the RR Score methodology. The report alone never was.

Lessons

• Move-in photos decided the most disputed point. See the move-out inspection checklist.
• Accepting a fair part of a claim strengthened Dana's credibility on the rest — see how a tenant should dispute a damage claim.
• Age and condition matter when valuing damage.

Learn more about how Reputation Records work and the Resolution Centre.