Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Leah Pritchard seeks repayment of £300 withheld from her rental deposit by Graham Bellamy. The stated reason for the deduction was cleaning and repainting a stained bedroom corner. Leah says the corner was already faintly marked at move-in and that she reported the recurring problem. Graham says the later staining was associated with indoor clothes-drying and asks the court to avoid full repayment. 2. The court decides the dispute on the shared hearing record and the supplied rules. A party’s submission is an argument, not proof by itself. The inspection sheet, photographs, and message thread are considered for what they actually show, with their limits. Issues for determination 3. The first issue is whether Leah has shown that the later staining was attributable to her rather than a pre-existing or recurring problem. Leah bears the burden on that issue under Rule 1, and Rule 9 distinguishes ordinary wear from misconduct. 4. The second issue is whether Graham has supported the £300 deduction with sufficient detail about the work and its actual, reasonable cost. Graham bears the burden on that issue under Rule 11, with Rule 6 requiring a remedy proportionate to proven harm. Submissions of the parties 5. Leah submits that the check-in note identifies a faint mark in the same lower window corner and that the later photographs do not establish when or why the staining worsened. She relies on the message thread as support for her account that she reported the corner repeatedly and says the thread shows no completed repair. She seeks repayment of the disputed £300. 6. Graham relies on the darker staining in the move-out photographs, the airer visible in one wider photograph, and Leah’s acknowledgment in the messages that she dried washing indoors. He says ventilation advice was given and argues that indoor drying explains the staining. He also says the deduction was fair, but identifies no itemized work or cost evidence. His final submission suggests possible ventilation improvements, but does not provide a different quantified remedy or evidence that Leah agreed to pay for such work. Evidence and findings 7. The inspection sheet, presented as exhibit-3-e1, records “bedroom walls clean” at check-in and specifically notes a “faint mark in lower window corner.” At check-out, Graham recorded “dark staining; clean and repaint £300,” and Leah added “same corner reported before.” The sheet is shared by both parties. It establishes the recorded condition and charge, but does not establish who caused the later condition or what work was done or paid for. 8. The move-out photographs, exhibit-4-e2, show dark speckling and a pale tide-like mark in the lower window corner. An airer appears in one wider image. The photographs are useful evidence of the condition at move-out and of the airer’s presence in that image. They do not show the corner during earlier months, the outside wall, or the cause of the staining. 9. The message thread, exhibit-4-e3 and exhibit-7-e3, records repeated reports by Leah that the corner became wet or marked again. Graham gave ventilation advice and once said he would look when he could. Leah acknowledged drying washing indoors. Near move-out, she said she had wiped the corner and it looked clean; the next morning she said the mark had returned. The thread supports notice, advice, indoor drying, and a reported recurrence. It does not confirm an inspection, completed repair, or independent diagnosis. The parties’ descriptions of what caused the staining remain competing explanations, not established facts. Reasons 10. On the cause issue, Leah has not proved that the later staining was attributable to her. The check-in note supports her position that the corner was not entirely unmarked at the start. The later photographs establish a changed appearance, but not when or why it changed. The messages support Leah’s account of repeated reports and also support Graham’s point that indoor drying occurred. Neither fact alone resolves causation. There is no independent diagnosis or other evidence linking the worsening to Leah’s conduct. Applying Rule 1 and Rule 9, the cause issue is not proven. This finding does not affirmatively establish that Graham’s explanation is correct. 11. On the amount of the deduction, Graham has not met his burden. The inspection sheet proves that he recorded a £300 charge for cleaning and repainting; it is not an itemized bill, receipt, or proof of actual expense. The photographs show staining, not the cost of addressing it. The messages likewise contain no cost information. Rule 11 calls for detail connecting a deposit deduction to actual costs, and Rule 6 requires the remedy to match the proven harm. The record does not support the amount withheld. The court does not infer that no cleaning or repainting occurred; it finds only that the amount and its reasonableness have not been established. 12. Graham’s proposed ventilation solution does not alter the result. The record contains no agreed payment obligation for a ventilation system, no cost for one, and no evidence that it was installed. The court therefore makes no order requiring Leah to pay for such work. Nor does the court award any amount beyond the £300 she claimed. Final order 13. Judgment is entered for Leah Pritchard on her claim for repayment of the disputed deposit deduction. Graham Bellamy must pay Leah £300. The claim is granted in full as to the £300 sought. No additional amount, ventilation expense, interest, or costs is awarded because none is supported by the record or requested as a quantified remedy. 14. The court’s order rests on Graham’s failure to support the amount of the deduction, not on a finding that Leah caused no worsening or that Graham’s proposed explanation is false. The cause of the staining remains unproven on this record.