Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Elin Berglund seeks return of SEK 1,500 withheld from her SEK 8,000 rental deposit by Oskar Nyström. The record says Oskar returned SEK 6,500 and retained SEK 1,500 for cleaning. Elin asks for the withheld amount back. Oskar relies on a message reporting grease behind the cooker and on records showing that he paid a cleaner SEK 1,500. 2. The parties have had an opportunity to address the invoice and the cleaner's breakdown. Elin says she has no further evidence about the flat's condition or the cleaning work. The record contains no additional obtainable proof identified by either party, and adjournment is not permitted. The court therefore decides on the available record. Issues for determination 3. The sole material issue is whether Oskar has shown that withholding the full SEK 1,500 was justified and supported by cleaning work for which Elin was responsible. Under Rule 11, a deposit deduction is stronger when itemized, timely, and tied to actual costs. The burden of supporting the deduction rests on Oskar, who kept the money. Rule 9 also distinguishes ordinary use from negligent or intentional damage. Rule 2 guides the court to give reliable records more weight than broad, unsupported accounts. Submissions of the parties 4. Elin argues that the invoice proves payment but not that all the work was her responsibility. She accepts that Oskar paid SEK 1,500 and that his message reports grease behind the cooker. She emphasizes that the cleaner allocated SEK 500 to that area and SEK 1,000 to window washing requested for the next tenant, without saying the windows were dirty or that she caused any dirt. Elin acknowledges that she has no independent evidence about the flat's condition and continues to seek return of the full SEK 1,500. 5. Oskar relies on the deposit-return message, the paid invoice, and the cleaner's breakdown. His position is that the records support the deduction. He also invokes the rule that ordinary wear is not misconduct. The record does not include a further explanation from Oskar connecting the window washing to Elin's conduct or establishing that the full charge was necessary because of the flat's condition at handover. Evidence and findings 6. The exchanged message is a contemporaneous record of the deposit amount, the SEK 1,500 withholding, Elin's response that she had cleaned, and Oskar's report that he found grease behind the cooker after handover. It establishes that the complaint was made and that the parties disputed the deduction. It does not independently establish the flat's condition, the cause of the grease, or the amount of work needed. The message is relevant but not conclusive proof of responsibility for the charge. (Exhibit 3-e1.) 7. The paid invoice records a SEK 1,500 payment to Klarvrå Städ for cleaning the flat two days after handover. Its description is only “cleaning before new tenant.” It reliably supports that Oskar incurred the stated expense, but it does not itemize the work or show why the work was required because of Elin. (Exhibit 6-e2.) 8. The cleaner's message allocates SEK 500 to cleaning behind the cooker and SEK 1,000 to washing windows at Oskar's request before the next tenant. It is a specific breakdown matching the invoice total and is useful evidence of the services and their prices. It does not say the windows were dirty or identify who caused any dirt. Nor does it independently verify the condition of the cooker area. (Exhibit 6-e3.) 9. Elin's statement that she has no further evidence is not proof that the flat was clean or that she bears no responsibility. It does, however, confirm that the court has no additional condition evidence from her. The court likewise cannot treat Oskar's assertion in submissions as proof beyond what the message and cleaning records establish. (Statements 7 and 9.) Reasons 10. The evidence establishes that Oskar paid SEK 1,500 for cleaning and that he reported grease behind the cooker after handover. It also establishes that SEK 500 of the bill was allocated to cleaning behind the cooker. These facts give Oskar some support for the proposition that at least part of the cleaning related to a specific area of concern. But the message is a report by Oskar, not an independent record of the condition or its cause. The court cannot find on this record that Elin caused the grease or that the SEK 500 charge was necessarily her responsibility. 11. The remaining SEK 1,000 is less supported as a tenant-responsibility deduction. The cleaner's breakdown says the window washing was requested before the next tenant. It does not say the windows were dirty, that they required cleaning because of Elin, or that the work addressed damage or neglect rather than preparation for the next tenancy. Payment of a service is not, by itself, proof that the former tenant must bear its cost. Rule 11 requires a connection between the deduction and actual costs for which the tenant is responsible; that connection is not shown for the window charge. 12. Rule 9 does not change the result. It cautions against treating ordinary use as misconduct, but the record does not establish whether the reported grease was ordinary use or a failure to clean. The court does not resolve that factual uncertainty against Elin as though she had the burden to prove the flat's condition. Oskar bears the burden of supporting the deduction. The contemporaneous message and itemized breakdown are relevant, but they do not establish that the full SEK 1,500 was properly chargeable to Elin. 13. The court has considered whether the evidence supports a smaller deduction. The record identifies SEK 500 for the cooker area, but it does not establish the condition or cause of the grease, and Oskar has not shown that this amount was a tenant-responsibility cost rather than simply a service performed. The court will not award or retain a partial amount based only on an uncertain inference. The burden on the deduction remains Oskar's, and the uncertainty about responsibility means the deduction is not proven on this record. Final order 14. Elin's claim is granted. Oskar must pay Elin SEK 1,500, the amount withheld from her deposit. No other relief is awarded. This order rests on the failure to establish that the full cleaning expense was Elin's responsibility; it does not find that the flat was clean at handover or that no cleaning was performed.