Commercial Furniture Reuse: A Hidden Risk for Landlords in Sydney & Melbourne
Location: Sydney CBD and Melbourne CBD
Asset Type: A-Grade Commercial Office Building
Stakeholders: Landlord, Managing Agent, Outgoing Tenant, Incoming Tenant
Engagement: End-of-Lease Make-Good & Transition Management
Commercial Furniture Reuse – Background
A landlord engaged Performance Facility Management (PFM) to oversee the end-of-lease make-good process for a vacating commercial tenant within an A-Grade office building in the Sydney and Melbourne CBD markets.
The lease required the tenancy to be returned clear of all loose furniture and non-fixed items to allow immediate builder access for works associated with the incoming tenant’s fit-out.
The outgoing tenant proposed reusing, donating, or selling the existing office furniture as a cost-saving measure.
From a landlord perspective, the primary concerns were:
- Programme certainty
- Builder access
- Risk management
- Protection of the base building
- Certainty of incoming tenant occupation
Landlord Risk Considerations
In Sydney and Melbourne CBD assets, make-good delays—even minor ones—can have material consequences. These include:
- Delayed builder commencement
- Programme compression
- Increased holding costs
- Risk to incoming tenant handover dates
Any strategy involving furniture reuse required careful assessment against these risks.
Option 1: Donation to Charity
The first option considered was donation of the furniture to charitable organisations.
While well-intended, this option presented several landlord-side concerns:
- Extended timeframes to coordinate inspections and removal
- After-hours access requirements
- Additional inductions, lift bookings, and supervision
- No certainty of acceptance or removal
Charities that were contacted declined primarily due to:
- Labour and logistics costs
- Transport and storage requirements
- Liability exposure once furniture is reused
From a landlord’s perspective, this introduced programme uncertainty without any material benefit to the asset.
Option 2: Selling the Furniture
The outgoing tenant then explored selling the furniture via resale platforms.
Two options were assessed:
Selling directly from the tenancy
- Required repeated after-hours access
- Increased building management involvement
- Lift and loading dock coordination
- Risk of aborted inspections and delayed clearance
Removing furniture for off-site sale
- Required dismantling and temporary storage
- Introduced additional handling and damage risk
- No certainty of sale within required timeframes
In both cases, the landlord was exposed to the risk of delayed clearance and disruption to the agreed works programme.
WHS and Liability Exposure in Commercial Furniture Reuse
A further concern identified was the condition and integrity of the furniture itself.
The furniture had been dismantled and reassembled multiple times over its lifecycle. This introduced uncertainty around structural integrity and compliance.
From a landlord’s perspective, reused furniture presents a risk scenario:
- Furniture failure
- Potential injury
- Dispute regarding responsibility and liability
Where furniture is new, these risks are typically transferred to the furniture supplier under warranty. With reused furniture, liability can become unclear—creating exposure for both tenant and landlord.
Outcome
Following a full risk and programme review, the landlord directed that:
- The tenancy be cleared in full and on time
- Furniture removal proceed as originally required under the lease
- Builder access be maintained without delay
This approach ensured:
- Programme certainty
- Protection of the base building
- Smooth transition to the incoming tenant
- No compromise to safety or compliance
Key Takeaways for Landlords
This case highlights several consistent themes in Sydney and Melbourne commercial assets:
- Furniture reuse introduces programme risk
- Timeframes rarely align with lease and fit-out schedules
- WHS and liability exposure are often underestimated
- Asset and income protection rely on certainty, not assumptions
What appears to be a tenant cost-saving measure can quickly become a landlord risk issue.
PFM Insight
In Sydney and Melbourne CBD buildings, end-of-lease furniture reuse is rarely a sustainability or cost solution—it is a programme and risk issue.
For landlords, the priority must remain clear:
- Certainty of clearance
- Protection of the base building
- Uninterrupted builder access
- Smooth incoming tenant transitions
Where furniture reuse introduces uncertainty, delay, or liability, it undermines the very outcomes landlords are seeking to protect. Clear make-good requirements and disciplined execution remain the most commercially sound approach.