Civil court in Bologna denies claim for return of €180 rental deposit cleaning deduction

The Civil court in Bologna denied Elisa Neri’s claim for repayment of €180 withheld from her rental deposit by Paolo Bellandi for oven and extractor-filter cleaning. The court held that Neri had not established her entitlement to recover the money, leaving the deduction undisturbed for this claim.

Bellandi was not ordered to pay any amount, and neither party received additional relief. The court expressly distinguished the denial of repayment from a finding that Neri had caused the need for cleaning or had been negligent.

The central evidentiary gap concerned responsibility for the cleaning, rather than whether Bellandi had incurred the expense. A bank transfer record established that he returned €720 of a €900 deposit and identified the remaining €180 as kitchen cleaning.

A paid invoice recorded cleaning of the oven and extractor filter at the flat two days after handover, at a cost of €180. The court accepted it as support that the work had been performed and paid for, but noted that it contained no photographs, assessment of the appliances’ condition or finding about who made the cleaning necessary.

Bellandi’s account that he found accumulated grease was consistent with the work described in the invoice. However, his submissions and attributed client statements were not independently verified documents or admitted witness testimony. The use of a professional cleaning service did not itself prove negligence.

Neri’s account of a handover message indicating that everything appeared satisfactory also carried limited weight. The message was not produced, and its timing and whether it followed an inspection inside the appliances could not be established. Its absence did not prove that the appliances were dirty, while the account of its wording did not prove that they were clean.

Applying the rules identified in the judgment, the court gave weight to reliable records and recognised that an itemized deduction tied to an actual cost had evidentiary support. But proof of spending was not conclusive proof of responsibility. Under Rule 1, Neri bore the burden of supporting her request for repayment, so the unresolved issue fell against her.

The court decided the matter on the available record after both parties had a final opportunity to address the evidence. No further obtainable proof was identified, and an adjournment was not allowed.

Neri argued that the transfer record proved the deduction and the invoice proved expenditure, but neither established that she had left the appliances in a condition making the charge her responsibility. She sought only the return of €180 and acknowledged the limited support offered by the unproduced handover message.

Bellandi opposed repayment, arguing that professional cleaning would not have been necessary without accumulated grease. He relied on the paid invoice and submitted that a handover inspection would not necessarily involve looking inside the oven or extractor filter.

Bellandi also pointed to Neri’s inability to produce the message. The court treated his request for dismissal as opposition to her claim, not as a separate demand for payment.

The dispute arose from the return of a €900 rental deposit concerning a flat in Bologna. Bellandi returned €720 and retained €180, saying he had discovered grease after handover and paid for cleaning two days later.

The outcome leaves that specific deduction in place because Neri did not establish a right to repayment on the available evidence. It does not resolve who caused the cleaning need or establish that the expense was attributable to her.