Ep 36. Denise v David

Denise and David have come to court in a dispute over a loan that Denise says was gifted to her, but David insists was a loan that he wants back. They were in a long-term relationship and had a joint bank account when Denise's daughter fell on hard times. Denise says that David offered to give them a loan of £10,000. But David claims that he never agreed it was a gift and expects the money to be repaid, with interest.

As we begin, Judge Rinder asks Denise about the background to this case, and she tells him that her daughter needed financial help when her marriage broke down. "I rang David and said can I borrow up to ten grand. He said no, he didn't want me to borrow it, I'm going to give it to you. I said are you sure? He said yes."

Judge Rinder asks David how he recalls the conversation, and he says that he told Denise he would loan her the money, "but she said no, I don't want to borrow it, I want a gift." He says that he replied that he would need to matter over before he made that decision, but maintains that he never agreed that it was a gift.

Denise says that she had always paid David back whenever she borrowed money from him and that he had no reason to believe this was any different. But David says that he was lending the money to Denise, not her daughter, and expected it to be repaid.

The judge looks at the evidence, which includes an incomplete loan agreement, which Denise says was drawn up after the money was transferred. Another piece of evidence is a WhatsApp message sent from Denise to David, in which she says: "thank you for gift". Judge Rinder puts it to Denise that this implies that she knew the money was a loan and not a gift, to which Denise responds that the message was sent in the heat of the moment and that she had assumed David had agreed to allow her to keep the money.

Next up, Judge Rinder looks at a calendar that was presented as evidence by David, which shows a record of the payments that Denise had made to him in the past. Denise insists that these payments were for a boiler that David had bought for her but David says that this was not the case.

The judge challenges Denise about her explanation and asks why she would have paid £4,500 to David to cover the cost of a boiler that was only worth around £1,500. Denise struggles to explain why and eventually concedes that she had made the payments in installments, but still maintains that they were for the boiler and not repayment of the loan.

Finally, Judge Rinder comes to his decision. In his judgment, he states that he believes that David had loaned Denise the money and did not intend for it to be a gift. He says that while Denise has provided some evidence suggesting that it was a gift, the WhatsApp message does not provide conclusive proof.

The judge rules that Denise must repay David the full amount of the loan plus interest. He also asks David whether he would be willing to consider a payment plan, to which David agrees. The judge orders Denise to make monthly payments of £300 until the loan has been repaid.

Overall, this episode is a classic example of a dispute over money. The evidence presented by both parties is conflicting, and it ultimately comes down to the WhatsApp message, which the judge says does not prove that the money was a gift. Despite some heated exchanges in court, both Denise and David accept the judge's decision and appear to be satisfied with the outcome.