Blog category
Legal Arena reports about rental dispute.
Most recent articles
A kitchen photo showed only part of the flat, while a cleaner's receipt did not identify the work. The court found neither the rental terms nor a specific recoverable amount had been proved.
Photographs showed staining beneath a window, but its cause and the need for full carpet replacement remained uncertain. The agreement makes no admission of fault.
The paid cleaning invoice covered both a kitchen and a shared entry, but gave no separate prices or hours for the two areas.
A receipt proved the landlord paid for cleaning, but neither it nor his account of a dark entrance strip established that the tenant should bear the cost.
The paid bill proved cleaning took place, not that the tenant owed its cost. A breakdown assigned most of the charge to window washing requested before the next tenancy.
A move-in text confirmed one existing carpet patch. The landlord lacked records connecting the cleaning charge to damage caused by the tenant.
WhatsApp messages explained why the landlord kept the money, but did not prove who caused the wall marks, whether repainting occurred or what it cost.
A paid invoice supported the cleaning cost, but neither side established the kitchen’s full condition. The tenant’s burden to support her refund request proved decisive.
A photograph showed gray wall marks, but a conditional painter’s estimate did not prove repainting was necessary. The landlord had not tried washing the marks.
A sent email did not establish a lawful end to the tenancy. A damp patch supported a condition complaint, but the evidence did not establish the correct rent reduction.
A paid painter’s bill did not prove the deduction was justified. But the court found that the tenant had not proved her entitlement to repayment either.
The dispute concerned extra cleaning of an oven and kitchen surfaces after move-out. The parties agreed to a €60 payment without any admission of fault.
