I'll look into this matter as to both sides of the story before commenting.

This post has been edited by wheimeng: May 13 2023, 05:15 AM

OK. I've checked on this:

The Case
1. We approved this tenant because we have verified the employment of this tenant with a valid expat visa, working as a Software Engineer (Lead) with an established American IT Consulting MNC; the salary is in the excess of 5 figures.
2. edwin's listing advertised that the condo has a badminton facility. Tenant made a dispute on that, 4th day after moving in. (Fact-check on other listing sites; badminton court is not listed as a facility.)
3. The tenant said it was outdoor, with cement flooring with 2 poles, a DIY badminton area.

The tenant wishes to terminate the contract because the badminton facility was the key reason he rented the place, a mismatch of expectations - a 'facility' vs DIY area. (Fact-check: He has viewed, and enquired multiple units at similar location in SPEEDHOME. The other condos do not have badminton listed as facility. He chose this unit, a higher-priced rental unit compared to others. This removes the pricing and location factor he chose the unit; hence strengthens his intention of wanting a badminton facility.)

a. edwin's argument is that a tenant should not be allowed to terminate just because it's not up to expectation.

My take:
I do agree with Edwin that tenants should not be allowed to terminate just because it's not up to expectation.

If I were to play badminton with my kids casually, outdoor DIY would be happy enough. But if a person is a serious player and renting a place because he thought there would be a facility, then it's a different standpoint.

Lastly, the key here is whether the outdoor cement DIY badminton area can be construed as a badminton facility - at this point, it is really disputable.

Next action:
x. We will meditate on this, mismatch of expectation.
y. Refund package subscription fees to edwin AND/OR;
z. Replace a tenant through the platform

Improvement
When we get to see two sides of the story, we can empathize with both parties. I don't see this matter as a 'credit-checking/loophole' problem because of the considerations stated. The root cause is more of a mismatch of expectation, what's fair.

i. I'll suggest this to our product team to improve the "facility" section cannot be edited, and honour our internal database to reduce mismatch of expectation.

My team will mediate this case, and I welcome any other viewpoints or constructive feedback for us so that we can think more thoroughly.

This post has been edited by wheimeng: May 13 2023, 07:50 AM