Unjustified deposit deductions and excessive repainting charges

Dear Sirs, I am submitting this complaint regarding a dispute over my rental deposit with IBERAQUISIÇÕES – INVESTIMENTOS IMOBILIÁRIOS LDA / NEWSTAY LDA. After leaving the apartment, I received confirmation from the company that the property had been returned in “generally good condition overall”. However, I am now facing excessive and unsupported deductions from my security deposit, including: €150 cleaning fee; €250 for disposal/removal of items; €1160 repainting quotation for walls due to minor marks and adhesive hooks. I did not drill holes into the walls, carry out structural alterations, or cause serious damage to the apartment. The tenancy agreement itself excludes normal wear and tear resulting from ordinary residential use from tenant liability. Despite my requests, the company has not yet provided sufficient invoices, evidence, or justification supporting the proportionality of these charges. I believe these deductions are excessive and potentially abusive, especially considering the apartment was acknowledged to be in generally good condition overall. I request assistance in obtaining: a transparent final settlement; supporting documentation and invoices; a fair reassessment of the proposed deductions. NEWSTAY, LDA — NIF 506325199 Kind regards, Iuliana Pakhomova

I have now added further supporting documents and photographs to the DECO dispute, including: the signed check-in / check-out condition report, which confirms the apartment was returned mostly in condition level “5” (excellent/new condition); photographs showing that the wall marks referenced are minor signs of ordinary use and do not justify a full repainting of the apartment; contractual documentation regarding the deposit and handover conditions. The documents also demonstrate that there were no substantial damages reported at check-out that would reasonably support the proposed deductions currently being discussed. I will await the detailed legal justification, invoices and evidence supporting any claimed costs.

Additionally, during my tenancy I was paying a fixed amount of €65 per month for water and electricity without receiving regular invoices or having any officially registered individual utility meters connected specifically to the apartment. Only after I raised the issue was I informed that “internal meters” existed within the building and that the utility package was allegedly based on internal readings and limits communicated via text messages. I therefore request: copies of all invoices corresponding to my tenancy period; the meter readings allegedly registered for my apartment; clarification regarding the legal and technical basis used to allocate these utility costs to the apartment, considering there were no individual official utility contracts or independent meters associated with the property. Given the current dispute regarding the deposit and deductions, I no longer have confidence in the transparency of the company’s handling of financial matters and therefore request full supporting documentation.

João Miguel Gonçalves Cerejeira, representative of Iberaquisições Investimentos Imobiliários, LDA, identified in the tenancy agreement.

I have also found a professional painter who can repaint the walls for €400 including VAT, official invoice and all materials/tools included. Therefore, the claimed amount of €1,160 appears clearly excessive and disproportionate. Furthermore, under Portuguese civil law, ordinary wear and tear resulting from normal residential use does not justify charging the tenant for full repainting works, especially where there are no holes, structural damage or substantial deterioration beyond normal use.

Additionally, after I submitted formal complaints regarding the withholding of my deposit, the company representative, Carlota, informed me in writing that the matter had allegedly been transferred to their “legal team” and that I would be contacted by their lawyer. However, despite this statement, no lawyer or legal representative has contacted me to date, and I still have not received proper supporting documentation justifying the deductions made from my deposit. I consider this continued delay and lack of transparent communication concerning, especially given that my deposit funds remain withheld. This creates the impression that references to a “legal team” are being used to delay resolution of the matter without providing the legally necessary documentation and justification for the deductions claimed.

I would also like to highlight the disproportionality of the amounts claimed. The apartment is a small studio of approximately 26 square meters. A €150 cleaning fee appears excessive, especially considering that the apartment was cleaned before handover and the company itself acknowledged that the property was returned in “generally good condition overall”. The claimed €250 waste removal charge is also unsupported by any invoices, receipts or evidence. The photographs do not demonstrate any substantial waste requiring special removal services. The remaining items mentioned were limited household items such as a kettle, carpet and mattress topper. No documentation has been provided demonstrating that any professional waste disposal service was actually ordered or paid. The proposed repainting quotation of €1,160 is particularly concerning and appears entirely disproportionate to the actual condition of the walls shown in the photographs and check-out report. The marks referenced appear consistent with ordinary residential wear resulting from normal use of the apartment. There were no drilled holes, structural damage or major deterioration. Furthermore, I understand that the apartment is already occupied by a new tenant, raising additional questions regarding whether such repainting works were ever actually necessary or carried out. To date, no evidence has been provided demonstrating: that full repainting of the apartment was legally or technically necessary; that the quoted works were actually performed; that the claimed amount reflects a reasonable and proportionate cost. As a tenant, I paid rent on time and provided the deposit in good faith to a professional real estate company. I therefore expect transparent, documented and proportionate handling of any proposed deductions.

Please take a look of all full information - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vNbW1WOsTmNNRiPdJZxX13DIw4VxMV0wOF7f1z7zOuc/edit?usp=sharing No proof has been provided demonstrating that full repainting was objectively necessary. Under Portuguese civil and tenancy law, ordinary wear and tear (“normal wear”) resulting from regular residential use cannot automatically be charged to the tenant. Minor wall marks, superficial scuffs or adhesive traces are consistent with ordinary use of the property and do not justify charging a tenant for a complete repainting of the apartment, especially where the check-out report itself does not document substantial damage. While clause 15.4 of the agreement refers to possible repair and maintenance costs after termination of the tenancy, such clause does not remove the landlord’s obligation to demonstrate: the actual necessity of such works; that the alleged condition exceeds ordinary wear and tear resulting from normal residential use; proportionality of the claimed amounts; and supporting documentation including invoices, quotations and proof of payment. The contract itself expressly excludes liability for deterioration resulting from normal and prudent residential use. But Article 5.1 also expressly states that the tenant is only responsible for repair works resulting from fault or negligence, excluding wear resulting from normal and prudent residential use. Therefore, ordinary signs of residential use including minor wall marks, light scuffs or superficial paint deterioration consistent with normal habitation cannot automatically justify extensive repainting costs or full restoration charges without clear evidence of actual damage beyond ordinary wear and tear.

My full dispute in this document

THE MAIN HERE IS While the tenancy agreement states under Article 15.4 that the tenant may be charged for repair or maintenance works if such works are necessary after termination of the lease, the agreement also expressly limits the tenant’s liability under Article 5.1 to damages resulting from fault or negligence, excluding wear resulting from normal and prudent residential use. Therefore, the landlord/agency must demonstrate not only the existence of alleged works, but also that: such works were objectively necessary; the condition of the apartment exceeded ordinary wear and tear; and that the alleged deterioration resulted from fault, negligence or improper use rather than normal residential use. However, the signed check-out report does not document substantial or abnormal damage requiring full restoration or repainting works. On the contrary, the apartment was described as being returned in generally good condition overall, with no drilled holes, structural damage or serious deterioration recorded. Furthermore, regarding the remaining claimed deductions, no supporting documentary evidence, invoices, receipts, proof of payment or proof of completed works has been provided to date. For these reasons, the continued withholding of the deposit appears unsupported and unjustified.

Dear DECO, As of 19.05.2026, the landlord/agency continues discussing only the alleged amounts of repair works while still failing to address the central legal issue of this dispute. I have repeatedly explained that I am not responsible for repainting or restoration works related to ordinary wear and tear resulting from normal residential use. This is supported by: - the signed check-out report, which confirmed the apartment was returned in generally good condition overall; - the tenancy agreement itself, which expressly excludes tenant liability for deterioration resulting from normal and prudent residential use; - and Portuguese civil tenancy principles regarding ordinary wear and tear. To this date, the landlord/agency still has not provided: - documentary proof demonstrating that the alleged works were objectively necessary; - evidence showing damage beyond ordinary residential use; - invoices or proof of completed works; - proof of proportionality of the claimed amounts. Despite this, they continue unlawfully withholding the entire amount of my security deposit. The agency also continues to maintain claims regarding: - €150 cleaning costs for a 26m² studio apartment, despite the check-out report confirming the apartment was accepted as cleaned; - €250 waste disposal costs, without any invoices, receipts or documentary proof demonstrating necessity of such expenses. I therefore maintain that the deductions remain unsupported, disproportionate and legally unjustified. Kind regards, Iuliana Pakhomova

Dear DECO, I would also like to raise additional concerns regarding the utility charges applied during my tenancy. The agency recently provided documents allegedly related to utilities. However, these documents are not actual utility provider invoices or proof of real consumption. They appear to be internal invoices issued by the agency itself for fixed monthly amounts of €65. No supporting documentation has been provided demonstrating: - actual electricity or water consumption; - meter readings; - allocation methodology between apartments; - invoices issued by utility providers; - or how the amounts charged specifically corresponded to my apartment. This is particularly concerning because clause 13 of the tenancy agreement expressly states that expenses related to water, electricity, telephone, internet and cable television are not included in the monthly rent and shall be agreed and paid directly with the corresponding service providers. However, the apartment did not have individual utility meters specifically connected to my unit and no transparent calculation system was ever provided during the tenancy. Therefore, significant doubts remain regarding the legal and factual basis of these fixed utility charges. Kind regards, Iuliana Pakhomova

I would also like to clarify additional important facts regarding the utility charges during the tenancy. Clause 13 of the tenancy agreement states that utility expenses (water, electricity, internet, etc.) are not included in the monthly rent and should be separately agreed and paid. Initially, after I moved into the apartment, I discovered that there were no individual official utility meters directly connected to my apartment. The agency then explained in writing that I would pay only 1/3 of the utility expenses and that monthly charges would be calculated based on actual utility bills and internal meter readings, which were expected to amount to approximately €10–20 per month. The agency sent me only once specific utility calculations based on actual provider invoices and meter readings. The communicated amounts were approximately: €21.83 for electricity; €13.75 for water. However, later during the tenancy, the agency unilaterally abandoned this calculation system and began charging a fixed monthly amount of €65 for utilities without transparent calculations, proper supporting documentation, or any consistent explanation regarding how this amount was determined. No full accounting documentation, transparent allocation method, meter calculation records, or complete supporting invoices were ever consistently provided for these later fixed monthly charges. These inconsistencies raise serious concerns regarding the transparency, legitimacy and proportionality of the utility charges applied during the tenancy. Additionally, as of today, the agency continues withholding my full security deposit while still failing to provide sufficient documentary evidence justifying the alleged deductions and restoration works. Kind regards, Iuliana Pakhomova

Eu, Carlota Correia, na qualidade de Responsável Comercial da empresa, venho esclarecer o seguinte:1. O apartamento foi arrendado no dia 01/08/2025, logo após obras de renovação, encontrando-se a estrear; 2. No contrato assinado, ficou acordado que o imóvel deveria ser mantido nas mesmas condições, considerando um uso normal, prudente e cuidado; 3. Após 9 meses de utilização, o apartamento foi-nos entregue num estado bastante degradado e descuidado, contendo ainda objetos de grande dimensão no interior do imóvel. Esta situação encontra-se expressamente prevista no contrato e origina custos para o inquilino; 4. As fotografias apresentadas por si não refletem o estado real em que o apartamento foi entregue, mostrando apenas as imagens que lhe interessam. Temos em nossa posse outras fotografias que demonstram a situação completa do imóvel e que serão apresentadas em sede própria, se necessário; 5. Tal como lhe foi transmitido, nunca afirmamos que iria ser retido o valor mencionado da caução. O valor comunicado correspondia apenas a uma estimativa inicial, baseada num primeiro orçamento. Estávamos, inclusive, a procurar alternativas mais económicas e a negociar internamente para reduzir ao máximo qualquer valor eventualmente imputável; 6. As faturas foram emitidas dentro do prazo legal e já foram novamente enviadas por email; 7. Esta situação encontra-se atualmente a ser acompanhada pela nossa advogada, dado que, face ao exposto, tem sido muito difícil manter uma comunicação construtiva consigo; 8. Ao longo da nossa atividade, devolvemos praticamente 100% das cauções aos nossos inquilinos, precisamente porque, na grande maioria dos casos, os apartamentos são entregues em bom estado e sem incidentes relevantes; 9. Considero esta reclamação manifestamente exagerada e difamatória, sobretudo porque o processo ainda não se encontrava concluído e nunca foi comunicada qualquer decisão final relativamente à caução. Tal como referido anteriormente, o valor apresentado era apenas uma estimativa inicial e não um montante definitivo. 10. O valor fixo para despesas foi acordado consigo, precisamente para facilitar a situação e evitar que tivesse de celebrar os contratos em seu nome; Relembro que esta situação apenas se verificou durante 4 meses, período durante o qual efetuou os pagamentos sem nunca levantar qualquer questão. Carlota Correia, Diretora Comercial escreveu (terça, 19/05/2026 à(s) 11:01):

Dear Madam, However, I must point out several important contradictions and concerns. While you now describe the apartment as being delivered in a “quite degraded and careless condition”, the signed check-out report provided to me on 05.05.2026 expressly stated that the apartment was returned cleaned and in “generally good condition overall”. No serious damage, structural deterioration or extraordinary restoration works were identified in that report. According to the tenancy agreement, the deadline regarding the return of the deposit was 15 days. Before this deadline, any alleged damages, necessary works or deductions should have been properly documented in the check-out report presented on 05.05.2026. Therefore, following the signed check-out report, I was expecting the return of my deposit. Instead, after several respectful follow-up messages from my side, I was ignored and only on 14.05 received via WhatsApp message from Carlota Correia unsupported proposed amounts and alleged works without any proof or evidence demonstrating either the necessity, proportionality or actual execution of such works. Naturally, following these communications and the continued withholding of my deposit, I began seeking assistance from the relevant consumer protection and regulatory authorities. More importantly, this type of communication and the unjustified proposal to withhold my deposit also prompted me to raise concerns regarding the utility charges, as throughout the tenancy I approached the agency and all payments with trust and responsibility. Regarding the utility payments, while I accepted the fixed monthly arrangement in good faith during the tenancy, this does not remove my right to request transparency, invoices or clarification once broader concerns regarding unsupported financial claims and withholding of funds arose. My complaints to the relevant consumer protection authorities remain entirely legitimate and proportionate and represent a lawful exercise of my rights. Sincerely, Iuliana Pakhomova

Dear Ms. Correia, Your current position appears to be an attempt to correct your own omissions retrospectively. The official signed check-out report was prepared by you at the time of handover and confirmed that the apartment was returned in generally good condition overall. If there had been serious damage requiring full repainting or substantial restoration works, it should have been clearly recorded in that report at the time not introduced later after the deposit dispute arose. Kind regards, Iuliana Pakhomova

Dear Deco and Madam Carlota 1. CHECK OUT REPORT - DECLARE NORMAL USE I have provided in the dispute all photographs from your own report, prepared and signed by you, as well as the email communications sent by you. I have not hidden, omitted or selectively chosen any information. Once again, your check-out report remains the main document reflecting the condition in which the apartment was returned. The report itself states that the apartment was returned in “generally good condition overall”, and no necessary repair or restoration works were identified or mentioned at that stage. Throughout the 9 months I lived in the apartment, I treated the property carefully and respectfully. I work from home, so having a comfortable and well-maintained living environment was important to me. Fresh white paint naturally shows every small contact mark during normal day-to-day residential use. It is simply unrealistic to expect that white walls in a lived-in apartment can remain in “museum condition”. I did not drill holes into the walls, break walls, or cause structural damage to the apartment. The photographs and the signed check-out report reflect ordinary residential wear consistent with normal use of the property. Check-out report itself states that the apartment was returned in “generally good condition overall”. From this, it follows that I cannot be held responsible for alleged works related to ordinary residential wear and tear Furthermore, the tenancy agreement itself expressly states that the tenant is not responsible for ordinary wear and tear resulting from normal and prudent residential use. The same principle is also recognised under Portuguese civil law. Once again I have uploaded full email from you here - https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1dJr4cmZVFd-AJl8W3igy1CUl0_Q8Dd18?usp=sharing 2. COMMUNICATION DIFFICULTIES AND EXAGGERATED AND DEFAMATORY I cannot agree with your characterization of my communication as “destructive”. On the contrary, the destructive communication arose from your side As mentioned above, on 05.05 the check-out report was sent to me, which again confirmed ordinary residential wear and stated that the apartment was returned clean and in generally good condition overall, with no additional claims or necessary works identified at that stage. For more than 10 days after report was sent to me, my emails and requests for clarification were ignored, and my phone calls were not answered, while my deposit continued to be withheld without supporting evidence. Only on 14.05 were substantial and unsupported deductions presented through private WhatsApp messages instead of formal documented communication by email supported by the check-out report So you describe my complaint as “manifestly exaggerated”, however I equally consider the amounts communicated to me - proposed exaggerated deductions from my deposit were: - €150 cleaning charge for an apartment of approximately 26 square meters appears entirely disproportionate, particularly considering that the check-out report itself confirms that the apartment was returned clean. Furthermore, the report itself mentions a possible cleaning fee of €100 only if necessary. For comparison, while living in a three-bedroom apartment in Lisbon, professional cleaning services cost approximately €30 for around 100 square meters. I would also like to recall the condition in which the apartment was originally delivered to me, including the presence of construction debris and boxes left inside the property at the beginning of the tenancy. - €250 for waste removal. I would also like to refer back to the check-out report. A mattress topper and carpet do not constitute large-scale construction waste, hazardous materials, or toxic waste requiring extraordinary disposal measures. In Lisbon, bulky waste collection for items such as mattresses and carpets is available free of charge through the municipality (“monos”) upon scheduling, and private removal services typically cost far below the €250 claimed. Therefore, this amount appears disproportionate and requires proper documentary evidence, including invoices, proof of payment, and evidence demonstrating why such costs were allegedly necessary. And finally, the proposed €1,160 repainting charge is frankly the most excessive and unjustified part of this entire situation. It creates the impression that this figure was simply taken from a generic internet estimate for repainting an old 26m² apartment in central Lisbon. On what legal basis it is being attributed to me after your own signed check-out report clearly stated that the apartment was returned in “generally good condition overall”. Final again: - the tenancy agreement expressly states that the tenant is not responsible for ordinary wear resulting from normal residential use; - Portuguese Civil Code principles equally establish that tenants are not liable for normal wear and deterioration resulting from regular habitation; - and your own signed check-out report directly confirms ordinary wear and tear and that the apartment was returned in “generally good condition overall”, for which the tenant is not responsible under both the tenancy agreement and applicable Portuguese civil law. From this, it follows that I cannot be held responsible for alleged works related to ordinary residential wear and tear Raising a formal dispute through DECO and requesting supporting documentation for deductions from my deposit is a legitimate consumer right and should not be interpreted as defamatory. It genuinely feels as though you assumed that, because I am a Ukrainian tenant living abroad, I would simply accept this situation without questioning it or defending my rights. Instead of resolving this matter transparently and reasonably, the manner in which this situation continues to be handled is only causing further damage to the company credibility and professional reputation.

Exmos. Senhores, Relativamente à presente reclamação, remeto para os esclarecimentos e resposta já anteriormente enviados, os quais mantemos integralmente. Com os melhores cumprimentos, Carlota Correia Diretora Comercial. escreveu (quarta, 20/05/2026 à(s) 10:45):

The company has once again failed to provide any evidence, invoices, quotations, photographs or documentation to justify the deductions taken from my deposit. Their position directly contradicts both the tenancy agreement and the check-out report, which confirmed that the property was returned in good overall condition. Instead of addressing the issues raised, they simply repeat the same statements without providing proof. In my experience, this company withheld a significant part of my deposit without sufficient justification or transparency. After months of requests, I still have not received proper evidence supporting the charges applied. I strongly advise future tenants to be extremely cautious before signing a contract with this company. Make sure you document everything, keep copies of all communications, and carefully review any deposit deductions. Based on my experience, I do not feel that my rights as a tenant were respected, and I believe other consumers should be aware of the risks before entering into an agreement with this company.