Ex partner in small claims action

Errata

The value of a six year old well 'used' bed is probably £10. He should make a claim through the court, judges are always grateful for cases that make them laugh their socks off.

ValHaller

wowiezowie wrote: »

Their relationship has ended and he is now taking her to court asking for the bed back or half of the cost (which would work out at £1000)

She should immediately offer to hand the bed back for half the cost. Written offer, endorsed 'without prejudice'.

Reasoning: If he is claiming just half the cost, he is conceding ownership is joint. So any solution which recognises that the bed is jointly owned should be accepted by the court.

But the whole matter is too skeezy to get upset that anyone calls it skeezy.

delain

fluffnutter wrote: »

They DNA the beds that come to small claims court. Whomever the biggest proportion of the stains belongs to gets to keep it. Fact.

Ewwww fluff _pale_ :rotfl:

Kayalana99

Errata wrote: »

The value of a six year old well 'used' bed is probably £10. He should make a claim through the court, judges are always grateful for cases that make them laugh their socks off.

It was brought after 6 years of relationship (and from what I can gather lasted about a year after?) so bed is probally not that old

Erinnire

Hope the OP comes back and lets us know the outcome!

I would hope they rule in his favor and she has to pay costs aswell. But that's just personal opinion.

peachyprice

What does 'skeezy' mean? Is it a cross between skanky and sleezy?

Mojisola

wowiezowie wrote: »

My relative has her own home and her ex used to stay 3 to 4 days a week. He purchased a bed for them both and it was delivered to my relatives address where they shared it.

Their relationship has ended and he is now taking her to court asking for the bed back or half of the cost (which would work out at £1000)

The bed is in his name and he is still paying it off in installments.

If the man's relative had posted -

my relative was in a relationship and he stayed with his partner 3 to 4 days a week. He bought an expensive bed which was delivered to her address.

The relationship has ended but he is still paying for the bed. She refuses to give it back to him. He has offered to let her have it for half the cost but she won't agree to that either.

My sympathises would be the man.

She should give the bed back or pay up.

silvercar

He bought the bed, his payments, his bed.

Her home, she allowed the bed to be in her house, presumably getting rid of a servicable bed of her own to make room. Some allowance needs to be made for this, in the provision of a bed similar to the one she dumped in order to make room for his.

The costs of removing the luxury bed should be his.

Manchee

Fire_Fox wrote: »

A complicating issue is that staying three to four days a week could be deemed as living together by some authorities (eg. DWP, councils) even if the ex maintained a property elsewhere.

Def don't agree with this at all. If the ex is/was maintaining a residence elsewhere and can prove it (eg. bank accounts registered at that address, registered to vote at that address, bills in his name etc) then there is no way the authorities would consider him living at her address.

At the end of the day, it was his bed and still is, he is paying for it. Unless it can be proved that it was meant as a gift, which off the top of my head I would assume would be very difficult at best, in my eyes she has no claim over it at all, and without having a crystal ball I would assume any judge would say the same. Just because I get H+M to deliver my order to my boyfriends when I'm not home, doesn't mean he gets to strut down the street in my new skirt!

And I agree with whoever it was that said this is a forum not a legal advice service, if you post a question its obvious people are going to give their opinions and some you aren't going to like. That's just the way the world works I'm afraid.

zzzLazyDaisy

Just for clarification.........

princeofpounds wrote: »

Personally, I'm pretty sure the judge would rule in his favour or 50/50.

50/50 would be a good compromise, but it is not an option open to the judge, who has to decide which party should win, there is no halfway house.


On the balance of probabilities therefore, she may well lose, and because she has rejected a perfectly reasonable 50/50 offer could be in danger of losing costs as well.

It is the small claims court. The issue of whether she rejected a reasonable offer is irrelevant. If she loses she will have to pay his court fees regardless, but apart from that, each party pays their own costs.