Manchester County Court rejects tenant's claim for return of £120 carpet-cleaning deduction

Manchester County Court has denied Hannah Bell's claim for the return of £120 that her landlord, Owen Fletcher, deducted from her deposit for carpet cleaning. Fletcher may retain the money on the evidence before the court.

The judge did not find that Bell caused the alleged carpet mark or deliberately concealed it. Instead, the court said the evidence left the reason for the cleaning charge uncertain and that Bell had not sufficiently supported her request for repayment.

The invoice established that Fletcher incurred a £120 cleaning charge, but did not describe a mark or explain why Bell should bear the cost. A dated message showed that he had booked the usual between-tenants clean before the move-out inspection.

That message supported Bell's argument that the clean may have been routine. But the judge said it did not establish the carpet's later condition, whether the clean would have happened regardless, or whether a mark created an additional or different need for cleaning.

Bell's moving-day photograph showed most of the carpet looking clean, but not the area behind the sofa. The court said the missing area did not prove deliberate concealment; equally, the photograph could not establish its condition.

Fletcher's account of a dark mark near the sofa was not independent documentation or admitted witness testimony. Neither that account nor his submissions established when the mark appeared or connected it to the cleaning charge.

The judge said Bell, as the party seeking repayment, bore the burden of supporting that relief. The uncertainty did not establish her claim, even though Fletcher's accusation was not proof of damage or misconduct.

Bell argued that the invoice proved payment for a clean, not that she caused a condition requiring it. She relied on the advance booking for the usual clean and her photograph, while accepting that she had no independent evidence of the area behind the sofa.

Fletcher maintained that the mark appeared during Bell's stay and argued that the photograph's limited view indicated she had deliberately hidden it. He also referred generally to the rental agreement as requiring renters to bear costs, but the agreement's wording was not in the record.

Bell rented a property from Fletcher and challenged the deduction after moving out. Fletcher said he noticed a dark mark near the sofa and paid for carpet cleaning.

The order resolves only the £120 claim on this record. It leaves unproven who caused the alleged mark, when it appeared and whether it was ordinary wear or damage.