A nurse who claimed her ex “lovebombed” her with cash and presents after scooping a £200,000 scratchcard win has been ordered to hand the money back after he sued her.
Craig Titchener scooped his big win on a Winter Wonderlines scratchcard in 2019 and told a judge he wanted to use it to buy a house for him and his kids.
He said he handed his girlfriend, nurse Heather Douglass, tens of thousands of pounds, which he claimed he intended she would use her “financial savvy” to invest for him.
But after they split, he sued her over the money, with Miss Douglass fighting his claim on the basis that he gave her it to spend on herself to “get back into her good books” when they quarrelled.
A judge last year ruled that £40,000 worth of payments from the Heathrow Airport fireman had been intended for investment and now after a further hearing Miss Douglass has been ordered to hand it back.
During the trial at Central London County Court last year, District Judge Charlotte Hart heard that Mr Titchener, 37, scored his big win on a Winter Wonderlines scratchcard in 2019, pocketing the top prize of £200,000.
He told the court he wanted to use the money to buy a house for him and his kids, but that after beginning a “volatile” 11-month relationship with Miss Douglass, he handed her £45,000 of his cash in 2022.
After they split, he began his court bid to retrieve his cash, telling the judge that he had expected Miss Douglass to invest it for him.
“I am someone who has always fought hard for a better life, for both myself and my children,” he told the judge.
“When I won that £200,000 on the scratchcard, I didn’t see it as just luck but as a life-changing opportunity.
“I thought that now I can finally buy the family home I’ve always wanted and that intention to invest in a home has been consistent from the start.”
But Miss Douglass fought the case, asserting that the payments were gifts, claiming that her ex “lovebombed” her with generous presents and cash and telling Mr Titchener: “You sent me money because you were desperate to be in a relationship with me”.
With both sides representing themselves in court and sitting just yards apart in a cramped courtroom, Mr Titchener challenged his former partner as she gave evidence, asking: “Why would I have transferred half of my life savings just to be in a relationship with you?”
She replied: “You want women to be with you and you struggle when you’re on your own. You’re very controlling and this was a relationship wholly based on control. You believe that you can buy people.”
Miss Douglass, who suffers from ADHD, told the judge that she had spent much of the money with Mr Titchener’s agreement, including on a Thai holiday for them both, household works and other items.
“Part of my diagnosis is that I have an addiction to over-spending,” she told the court.
“When I’m elated I will buy extravagant things. I have a tendency to overspend. If you came to my house, you’d see there are things coming there every day.”
After three days in court, Judge Hart ruled that £40,000 of the money transferred was intended to be invested – as Mr Titchener claimed – and was not meant as a gift.
However, she went on to find that a £5,000 cash transfer was a gift as claimed by Ms Douglass, intended as a thank you from Mr Titchener for her support during their relationship along with a £300 bottle of Lancôme perfume.
Giving judgment, the judge said there was “very little evidence to support claims of a controlling or harassing relationship” and ruled that Miss Douglass had failed to prove that the £40,000 was gifted to her.
After ruling last year, the judge decided there had to be a further court hearing to determine whether Miss Douglass may have spent some of her ex’s £40,000 stake with his consent.
The case returned to court again for a hearing via a remote video link last week, with Mr Titchener arguing that because his ex had failed to submit full evidence of her finances, his case should automatically succeed.
Giving judgment, Judge Hart said Miss Douglass had been ordered by the court to file a witness statement, complete with her bank statements for the crucial period between February 2022 to February 2024.
However, she had failed to obtain her statements and so was in breach of the order, she said.
“The failure to produce the bank statements as directed is a serious and significant breach of the court order,” she said continued.
“The statements are very significant to the account as they would show the income coming into her bank account and the level of her outgoings. It would also show what money was received from Mr Titchener.
“It is an important part of her case that her earnings were such that she couldn’t afford the expenditure on holidays and other items that the parties engaged in.”
She said Miss Douglass’ explanation for her failure based on a change of email address and a refusal by her bank was not good enough.
“The order was in terms that unless the bank statements were exhibited, the claimant was entitled to enter judgment in the sum of £40,000,” she said.
“The explanations she gives for her failure to deal with that order do not amount to a good reason.
“There is nothing said beyond the fact that the branch rejected her initial request.
“I am satisfied that there is no good reason for the breach.”
The judge entered judgment against Miss Douglass for the £40,000, at which point the former nurse simply turned off the video link, telling the judge: “I am going to leave because I don’t agree with any of this. Goodbye.”
