County Court in Bristol orders garage cleared in seven days despite disputed extension

The County Court in Bristol ordered Owen Bellamy to remove his belongings from Helen Pritchard's garage and return her key within seven days, granting the relief she sought. It rejected his request to dismiss the claim or allow storage until 30 June. No money was awarded.

The dispute was not about ownership: Bellamy accepted that the garage belonged to Pritchard and that his furniture would eventually have to go. The question was whether a later exchange had given him more time after she issued a written removal notice.

Two written records anchored the decision. The February email exchange allowed free storage without a fixed end date, but required Bellamy to clear his belongings when Pritchard ended permission. Her 2 May email then required removal and return of the key by 31 May. His reply acknowledged that notice.

The alleged messages of 8 and 11 May were not in evidence. Although both sides described them, the court could not reliably determine the exact terms of any extension. It found neither Pritchard's claimed booking condition nor an unconditional agreement allowing storage until 30 June established.

That uncertainty did not displace the written permission and acknowledged notice. Pritchard bore the burden of proving her claim, and the court concluded that those records established her stronger right to control the garage. Bellamy's understanding of extra time was a competing account, but lacked reliable evidence of an agreed extension.

The judge considered the seven-day order proportionate because it addressed removal and return of the key, without damages or a monetary penalty. Importantly, the absence of the later messages was not treated as proof that Pritchard's description of them was true.

Pritchard initially argued that she had offered time until 30 June only if Bellamy confirmed a collection booking by 12 May. His reported plan to collect on 29 June, possibly using a van obtained by his brother, was not a confirmed booking, she submitted.

Her side later accepted that it could not produce the messages or independently establish their exact wording. It therefore relied on the February arrangement and the acknowledged 2 May notice.

Bellamy argued that he understood the permission had been extended until 30 June, making the possession claim premature. He described his collection plan and acknowledged that no van booking had been confirmed by 12 May, but sought dismissal or time until the later date.

The arrangement began in February, with Pritchard retaining use of the garage's remaining space while Bellamy stored furniture free of charge. The emails specified neither a fixed end date nor a required form of notice.

The judgment resolves control of the garage on the evidence presented, not the precise meaning of the missing May exchange. It makes no finding about property damage or any other monetary loss.