Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Hannah Bell asks for the return of £120 withheld from her deposit by Owen Fletcher for carpet cleaning after she moved out. The record contains an invoice for the clean, a message in which Owen asked the cleaner to book the usual between-tenants carpet clean, and Hannah’s dated photograph of most of the carpet. The photograph does not show the area behind the sofa. 2. Owen says a dark mark was near the sofa and that it appeared during Hannah’s stay. His account of the mark is partly relayed through a saved client answer, not an independently verified document or admitted witness testimony. The parties have had a final opportunity to address the evidence. Hannah says she has no further independent evidence about the hidden area or who caused any mark. Issues for determination 3. The central issue is whether Hannah has shown that the £120 deduction should be returned because the cleaning cost was not properly attributable to her. Under Rule 1, the party asking for relief must point to specific facts or records supporting that request. Rule 11 says a deposit deduction is stronger when itemized, timely, and tied to actual costs. Rule 2 gives greater weight to reliable records than vague accounts. Rule 9 distinguishes ordinary wear from misconduct, and Rule 8 cautions that suspicion is not proof. Submissions of the parties 4. Hannah submits that the invoice proves only that Owen paid for cleaning, not that she caused a condition requiring it. She relies on the booking message, which says “the usual carpet clean between tenants” was arranged before the move-out inspection, and on her photograph showing most of the carpet looking clean. She acknowledges that the photograph does not show behind the sofa and that she has no further independent evidence. She asks for the £120 back. 5. Owen says the mark was behind the sofa and appeared during Hannah’s stay. He argues that the photograph’s failure to show that area was deliberate and indicates that Hannah knew about the mark. He also refers generally to the rental agreement requiring renters to bear costs. The record does not include the agreement’s wording. Owen’s final response repeats the accusation but adds no independent evidence linking the mark to the cleaning charge. Evidence and findings 6. The invoice, presented by both parties, records a £120 carpet clean after Hannah moved out. It is itemized as a cleaning charge, but gives no description or photograph of a mark. It proves that the charge was incurred; by itself, it does not show why Hannah should bear it. 7. The dated booking message is specific evidence that Owen arranged the usual carpet clean between tenants before the move-out inspection. It supports Hannah’s argument that the clean may have been routine. But it does not establish the carpet’s later condition, whether the clean would have happened in any event, or whether an additional or different cleaning need arose from a mark. 8. Hannah’s dated photograph shows most of the carpet looking clean. Its limited view means it cannot establish the condition behind the sofa. The photograph is relevant to the area it depicts, but it does not resolve the disputed area. Its omission of that area does not, without more, prove that Hannah deliberately concealed anything. 9. Owen’s submissions assert that the mark appeared during Hannah’s stay. The saved client account describes a dark mark near the sofa, but is an attributed account rather than independent documentation or admitted testimony. Neither that account nor the submissions establish when the mark appeared or that it caused the £120 charge. The assertion that Hannah hid the mark is an inference from the photograph’s limited view, not proof of her knowledge or responsibility. Reasons 10. Rule 11 requires a deduction to be tied to an actual cost and a specific reason for charging the tenant. The invoice satisfies the actual-cost part: Owen paid £120 for carpet cleaning. The booking message and invoice together also show that a usual clean was arranged and paid for. They do not, however, establish whether the charge was solely routine or whether a condition attributable to Hannah made the cleaning necessary. No record describes the mark, documents its timing, or connects it to the invoice. 11. The evidence therefore leaves a genuine uncertainty. Hannah’s photograph supports the condition of most of the carpet, but not the area at issue. The booking message supports her contention that a routine clean was planned, but does not prove that the charge was unrelated to the carpet’s condition. Owen’s account raises the possibility of a mark but does not reliably establish its timing or causal connection to the charge. The court does not find that Hannah caused the mark, nor that she deliberately hid it. 12. That uncertainty does not itself establish Hannah’s claim. Under Rule 1, Hannah asks the court to order repayment and bears the burden of supporting that relief. The record does not sufficiently show that the deduction was not properly attributable to her. Conversely, Owen’s unsupported accusation is not treated as proof of damage or misconduct. The result follows from Hannah’s unmet burden, not from a finding that Owen proved she caused a mark. 13. Rule 9 does not change the result: the record does not establish whether any mark was ordinary wear or damage. Rule 6 requires a remedy to match proven harm; no additional amount or broader remedy is supported. The only amount in issue is the £120 deduction. Final order 14. Hannah’s claim for return of the £120 cleaning deduction is denied. Owen may retain the £120 on this record. This order does not find that Hannah caused the alleged mark or deliberately concealed it; those allegations remain unproven. No other amount or relief is established by the record.