Sheffield county court orders £300 deposit repayment over unsupported repainting charge

The county court in Sheffield ordered Graham Bellamy to repay the £300 he withheld from Leah Pritchard’s rental deposit for cleaning and repainting a bedroom corner. It granted her claim in full because he had not supported the deduction with evidence of actual or reasonable costs.

The dispute centred on a corner that was faintly marked at move-in and darker at move-out. Bellamy attributed the worsening to indoor clothes-drying; Pritchard pointed to a recurring problem she had reported. The court left the cause unresolved: repayment did not amount to a finding that she had caused no worsening.

No additional amount, ventilation expense, interest or costs was awarded.

The decisive distinction was between recording a charge and proving its amount. The inspection sheet contained a £300 entry for cleaning and repainting, but no itemised bill, receipt or proof of actual expense. Neither the photographs nor the messages supplied cost information.

Under the supplied rules, Bellamy had to connect the deduction to actual costs, and the remedy had to match proven harm. The court did not infer that no cleaning or repainting occurred; it found that the amount and its reasonableness had not been established.

The evidence about responsibility was inconclusive. Although the check-in sheet described the bedroom walls as clean overall, it specifically recorded a faint mark in the lower window corner. Move-out photographs showed dark speckling, a pale tide-like mark and an airer in one wider image, but not when or why the staining developed.

The message thread supported repeated reports, ventilation advice and Pritchard’s acknowledgment of indoor drying. It also recorded her account that the mark returned the morning after she wiped it away. Without an independent diagnosis or other evidence linking the worsening to her conduct, the competing explanations remained unproven.

Pritchard argued that the specific check-in note mattered more than the general description of clean walls. She said the later photographs showed condition, not responsibility, and that her reports concerned the same recurring corner.

Bellamy relied on the darker staining, the photographed airer and the acknowledgment of indoor drying. His side argued that ventilation advice had been given and that the deduction was fair.

His final submission suggested ventilation improvements. The court found no agreed obligation for Pritchard to pay for a system, no price and no evidence of installation, so it made no order for that work.

The archived messages spanned four months. Bellamy advised ventilation and once said he would look at the corner when he could, but the thread did not confirm an inspection or completed repair.

The judgment resolves the disputed deposit deduction, not the underlying damp problem. Its outcome rests on the unsupported charge; it establishes neither that indoor drying caused the staining nor that Bellamy’s explanation was false.