Ava and Ruth bought a tent together in 2018 while living in Spain. Ava moved back to the UK in 2024, leaving the tent with Ruth in Spain. Now both women want to use the tent for the same festival, and they disagree about who owns it.
Ava says she paid for half of the tent and therefore deserves equal use of it, even though they no longer live in the same country. Ruth argues that she has stored, maintained, and repaired the tent for years, so she should get priority access.
Ava's case: half the cost, half the ownership
Ava explains that she and Ruth bought the tent together when they lived together in Spain and attended festivals. They used it at four different festivals in Spain and Portugal, and then every year for festivals and camping trips.
When Ava moved back to the UK in 2024, it made sense for the tent to stay with Ruth in Spain. Ava says there was no formal decision about ownership at that time. She assumed the tent still belonged to both of them.
Now Ava is returning to Spain for a festival and wants to use the tent with her boyfriend Michael. Ruth is also going to the same festival with her partner Luis and wants the tent for herself.
Ruth says the tent is practically hers because it has been at her flat and she has used it much more since Ava moved away. She also paid for repairs when it got a hole. Ava appreciates that Ruth has looked after it but insists that doesn't change the fact that she paid for half of it from the start.
Ruth's case: storage, upkeep, and established use
Ruth acknowledges that they originally split the cost of the tent in 2018. But since Ava moved back to the UK, Ruth has been the one using it, storing it in her flat, and dealing with maintenance. She paid for the repairs when the tent got a hole.
Ruth says Ava hasn't contributed to upkeep expenses from the UK and forgot about the tent until now. She argues that you can't disappear from the practical ownership of something for years and then expect the same access when you want it again.
Ruth is not refusing to let Ava use it out of possessiveness. She simply has an established use for something that has been in her possession for years. She says she is first in line and gets first dibs.
Jury verdicts from Guardian readers
The Guardian readers' jury offered varied opinions. Holly, 36, said Ruth deserves to keep the tent because she managed storage and upkeep. If Ava insists on part-ownership, she should pay Ruth for the cost of repairs, but that seems petty. Holly suggested using the festival to reconnect as friends.
Alden, 29, said the tent will have depreciated in value, and Ruth has paid for repairs. The fairest solution would be for Ruth to buy out Ava at a reduced rate, or they could share the tent at the festival.
Mark, 32, recognised Ruth has incurred costs from storing and repairing the tent but noted she has also had free usage for two years. He said Ruth should buy Ava out for half the price of a comparable used tent.
Verity, 37, said Ava has been back in the UK for two years and the tent is eight years old. She said Ruth has been storing and repairing it, and it's impolite to expect free storage. She advised Ava to buy a new tent.
Kitty, 34, said both are being boring and possessive over the old tent. She suggested Ava should be gracious and relinquish ownership since Ruth has had it cluttering her home.
The online poll asks readers to decide whether Ruth should accept that she's in the losing camp. The poll closes on Wednesday 14 October at 9am BST. Last week's results showed 68% of readers said Kitty should let her boyfriend hang his football calendar on the wall, and 32% said no.
