The prosecution: Ava
Ruth and I bought a tent together when we were living together in Spain and going to festivals there. We had a good time using it, and took it to four different festivals in Spain and Portugal. And after that we used it every year for festivals and camping trips.
It was always our tent, not Ruth’s tent that I occasionally borrowed. I moved back to the UK in 2024 and Ruth stayed in Spain, so it made sense for the tent to stay with her. There wasn’t much point in me taking half a tent back to London, and at the time there was no reason to formally decide who owned it. We were friends, we’d always used it together so I assumed it still belonged to both of us.
Now we both have partners and both need the tent. I’m coming back to Spain for a festival and asked Ruth if I could use the tent with my boyfriend Michael. The problem is that she’s going to the festival too with her partner, Luis, and wants it for herself.
Ruth says the tent is practically hers because it has been at her flat and she’s used it much more since I moved away. She also paid for repairs when it got a hole in it. I appreciate that she’s looked after it, but none of that changes the fact that I paid for half of it from the start.
I always assumed that I’d be able to use it at some stage, or have her buy me out. She has offered exactly that but doesn’t believe she should pay the same amount that I had paid for it initially, because she’s kept it all these years. I think that’s ridiculous.
Besides, I didn’t give Ruth my share of the tent when I moved away. I didn’t sell it to her or tell her she could keep it permanently. I still have ownership over it – but now that I need it, it’s suddenly not mine any more.
If this was a court of law, I’d still have a stake in this tent. I hope the court of public opinion sides with me. We need to acknowledge that I still own half.
The defence: Ruth
Yes, Ava and I originally split the cost of the tent. We bought it in 2018 when we lived together and used to go to festivals and camping together. Back then, calling it “our tent” made total sense because we had a shared life and actually used it together.
But then Ava moved back to the UK and the tent stayed with me in Spain. Since then, I’m the person who has actually been using it. It has been stored in my flat, taking up my space, and whenever something has needed sorting out, I’ve dealt with it.
At one point the tent got a hole in it and needed repairing. I paid for the repairs. Ava hasn’t been contributing towards those expenses from the UK while I’ve continued maintaining and using the tent. I don’t think you can disappear from the practical ownership of something for years and then suddenly expect exactly the same access to it when you happen to want it again.
She actually forgot about the tent until now, and never asked about the upkeep or storage. Now she’s coming back for a festival and wants to use it. Unfortunately, I’m going to the same festival and I need it too.
I’m not refusing her because I’m being possessive or because I’ve forgotten that she originally contributed. I simply have an established use for something that has effectively been in my possession for years. I’m first in line; I get first dibs.
What am I supposed to do? Hand over the tent I’ve stored, used and maintained and then go and buy myself another one? Ava thinks so.
Maybe the fairest thing now is for us to formally sort out ownership rather than keep pretending one tent can belong equally to two people living in different countries. I can buy her out, but I don’t think paying her exactly half back is the answer for all the reasons above: storage, repairs. It doesn’t solve the dilemma as to who gets to use it now either. It’s unreasonable to expect me to give it up exactly when I need it myself.
Names have been changed
The jury of Guardian readers
As Ruth has managed the storage and upkeep of the tent, she deserves to keep it. If Ava is going to insist on part-ownership, then she should pay Ruth for the cost of repairs, but that seems very petty. Why not use the festival to reconnect as friends? Ava should let the tent go.
Holly, 36
Given the tent will have depreciated in value over this time, and Ruth has paid for repairs, the fairest solution would be for Ruth to buy out Ava at a reduced rate. Either that or they share the tent at this festival.
Alden, 29
I recognise Ruth has incurred costs from storing and repairing the tent, but she’s also had free usage of it for the past two years. Ruth should buy Ava out for half the price of a comparable used tent.
Mark, 32
Ava, you’ve been back in the UK for two years. The tent is eight years old, and you’re fighting for custody? Ruth has been storing it and repairing it, and it’s impolite to expect free storage when you don’t need it. Upgrade yourself. Buy yourself a new tent.
Verity, 37
They are both being very boring and possessive over this holey old tent. Do neither of their boyfriends have tents?! Surely one of the few perks of having a boyfriend is they have access to tents? But as Ruth has had this one cluttering her home then Ava just needs to be gracious and relinquish ownership.
Kitty, 34
Now you be the judge
In our online poll, tell us: should Ruth accept that she’s in the losing camp?
The poll closes on Wednesday 14 October at 9am BST
Last week’s results
We asked if Kitty should let her boyfriend hang his football calendar on the wall.
68% of you said yes – Kitty is guilty
32% of you said no – Kitty is innocent
