Uppsala tingsrätt orders return of SEK 1,500 deposit deduction over cleaning bill

Uppsala tingsrätt has ordered Oskar Nyström to return SEK 1,500 withheld from Elin Berglund’s rental deposit, granting her claim in full. The court found that the cleaning records proved he had paid for work, but did not establish that she was responsible for its cost. No other relief was awarded.

The dispute turned on the difference between paying to prepare a flat for a new tenant and proving that the departing tenant should foot the bill. Although Oskar reported grease behind the cooker, two-thirds of the deduction covered window washing requested before the next tenancy.

Because Oskar kept the money, he bore the burden of supporting the deduction. The court applied the recorded rules requiring a connection between deposit deductions, actual costs and tenant responsibility, while giving reliable records greater weight than unsupported accounts.

The deposit-return messages established the amount withheld and the parties’ competing accounts: Elin said she had cleaned, while Oskar reported finding grease after handover. They did not independently establish the flat’s condition, the cause of the grease or the work needed.

The paid invoice confirmed a SEK 1,500 expense two days after handover. Its general description, “cleaning before new tenant,” did not explain why Elin should pay. A separate cleaner’s message allocated SEK 500 to cleaning behind the cooker and SEK 1,000 to washing windows, but did not describe the windows as dirty or connect their condition to Elin.

The court also considered allowing the smaller cooker-cleaning deduction. It declined because neither the condition nor the cause of the grease was independently established. The rule distinguishing ordinary use from misconduct did not resolve that uncertainty, and Elin did not have to disprove responsibility.

Elin accepted that Oskar had paid the cleaner. Her argument was narrower: payment did not show that every service on the bill was her responsibility. She acknowledged having no further independent evidence about the flat’s condition, but maintained her request for the full SEK 1,500.

Oskar relied on the deposit messages, paid invoice and cleaner’s breakdown as support for retaining the money. He also invoked the distinction between ordinary wear and misconduct. The judgment records no further explanation linking the window washing to Elin’s conduct or showing why the entire bill resulted from the condition at handover.

Elin’s deposit was SEK 8,000. Oskar conducted a quick handover check and initially considered the flat acceptable, before reporting grease behind the cooker. He subsequently returned SEK 6,500 and retained the cleaning charge.

The record contained no photograph of the grease or witness confirmation of the flat’s pre-cleaning condition. The order rests on the failure to prove responsibility for the deduction—not a finding that the flat was clean at handover or that no cleaning took place.