Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Elisa Neri seeks return of €180 withheld from her €900 rental deposit by Paolo Bellandi. The transfer record shows that Paolo returned €720 and described the difference as kitchen cleaning. Elisa asks for no broader relief. 2. Paolo opposes the claim. He says grease in the oven and on the extractor filter required professional cleaning and that the deposit was properly used to pay for it. He asks that Elisa’s case be dismissed. The record contains no separate claim by Paolo for additional money. Issues for determination 3. The sole material issue is whether Elisa has established that the €180 cleaning deduction should be returned to her. Under Rule 1, the party seeking relief must support the request with specific facts, records, or testimony. Elisa therefore bears the burden of supporting her claim. Rule 11 makes a deposit deduction stronger when it is itemized, timely, and tied to actual costs. Rule 2 directs the court to give greater weight to reliable records than to vague accounts. Submissions of the parties 4. Elisa argues that the transfer record proves the deduction but not that she left the kitchen in a condition making her responsible for the cleaning. She accepts that the handover message she describes is limited support: its text is not produced, its timing is unknown, and it does not establish that Paolo inspected inside the oven. She emphasizes that the invoice proves an expense, not responsibility for it. 5. Paolo argues that the professional cleaning would not have been necessary without accumulated grease and that the invoice supports his account. He says a handover check would not necessarily include looking inside the oven or filter. He also points out that Elisa has not produced the handover message itself. His request for dismissal is considered as opposition to Elisa’s claim, not as a separate claim for payment. Evidence and findings 6. The transfer record, exhibit-3-e1 and its duplicate exhibit-9-e1, establishes that Paolo returned €720 from a €900 deposit and identified €180 as kitchen cleaning. It proves the amount withheld and the stated reason. It does not establish the condition of the kitchen or whether Elisa was responsible for the expense. 7. The paid invoice, exhibit-4-e2 and its duplicates exhibit-6-e2 and exhibit-9-e2, identifies cleaning of an oven and extractor filter at the flat two days after handover and charges Paolo €180. The invoice is relevant and supports that the work was performed and paid for at that amount. Its reliability as a record of the transaction does not make it proof of every disputed fact: it contains no photographs, condition assessment, or finding about who caused the need for cleaning. 8. Paolo’s submissions and the client answers attributed to him in exhibit-4-client-statement:25 and exhibit-4-client-statement:31 say he found grease and withheld the money to pay for cleaning. These are attributed accounts, not independently verified documents or admitted witness testimony. They are consistent with the invoice’s description of the work, but do not independently establish the appliances’ condition before cleaning or Elisa’s responsibility. The court does not treat the invoice as proof of negligence merely because a professional service was used. 9. Elisa’s submissions describe a handover message saying that everything seemed in order. She acknowledges that she cannot provide the message or establish its date, timing relative to cleaning, or whether Paolo inspected inside the appliances. The account is relevant but carries limited weight on the disputed condition. It does not prove that the oven and filter were clean, just as the absence of the message does not prove they were dirty. Reasons 10. The evidence establishes that Paolo withheld €180 for a stated cleaning purpose and paid €180 for cleaning the oven and extractor filter shortly after handover. Those facts support the existence and amount of the expense. They do not resolve the central question: whether the expense was properly attributable to Elisa. The invoice’s matching amount and description are not a condition report and do not establish responsibility. 11. Paolo’s explanation that grease had accumulated over time is plausible as an account, but the record supplies no direct observation in a produced inspection note, photograph, or other independent record. The court does not reject his account; it finds that the account, without further support, does not establish the disputed condition. Equally, Elisa’s account of a favorable handover message is not enough to establish that the appliances were inspected or satisfactory. Neither party’s account fills the evidentiary gap. 12. Rule 11 favors a deduction that is itemized and tied to actual costs. Here, the transfer description identifies the deduction, and the invoice supports an actual cost of the same amount. But Rule 11 does not make proof of expenditure alone conclusive as to the tenant’s responsibility. The court must also apply Rule 1. Elisa asks the court to order repayment, so the unresolved question of responsibility falls against her because she bears the burden on that request. This is not a finding that Paolo proved Elisa was negligent; it is a finding that Elisa has not established her entitlement to recover the withheld amount on this record. 13. The parties have had a final opportunity to address the evidence, and Elisa has confirmed that the handover message and its timing cannot be provided. No further obtainable proof is identified. An adjournment is not allowed, and repeating the request for unavailable material would not assist. The issue is therefore decided on the available record. Final order 14. Elisa Neri’s claim for return of €180 is denied. Paolo Bellandi is not ordered to pay Elisa any amount. The €180 deduction remains undisturbed for purposes of this claim; this order does not find that Elisa caused the cleaning need or that Paolo established negligence. No additional relief is granted to either party.