A builder who did up the £315,000 flat bought in his girlfriend's name is suing for the £60,000 value of his work following their breakup.

Gareth Powell, 31, and Chloe Thomas, 28, had planned to do up the flat they shared near London's Wandsworth Common and sell it for a healthy profit.

Advertising executive Miss Thomas had the available funds to buy the flat in 2012, and self-employed Mr Powell had little cash, but it was agreed he would do the work to make the 'uninhabitable' property fit for sale.

Builder Gareth Powell, 31, (left) who did up the £315,000 flat bought in his girlfriend Chloe Thomas's name is suing for the £60,000 value of his work following their breakup. Miss Thomas, 28, is pictured with her mother Heather, who encouraged the couple to sign a contract protecting their interests if their relationship ended

However, because the apartment was in Miss Thomas's sole name, Mr Powell was left without a penny for his efforts when the couple split up in 2014.

She still owns the flat, which is now worth around £450,000.

He is now suing for payment of the £60,000 he says he is owed, claiming his former girlfriend betrayed him by going back on an agreement that he would be entitled to a third of the profit if their relationship ended.

'The discussions we had were that we would embark on this venture together,' he told Judge Heather Baucher at Central London County Court.

'We were going to do up this property and sell it to acquire another one.'

The court heard the couple, who had been together for eight years, decided to buy the flat towards the end of 2012.

They agreed that, because he was unable to contribute to the purchase price, Mr Powell would use his skills to renovate the apartment.

He told the judge the flat was 'uninhabitable'. There was very poor water pressure, no heating, and the couple suffered a freezing winter when they moved in.

Advertising executive Miss Thomas had the available funds to buy the flat near Wandsworth Common (pictured) in 2012, and it was agreed that self-employed Mr Powell would do the work to make the 'uninhabitable' property fit for sale

Using cash loaned by his parents, he spent more than £14,000 on materials, which he then used to bring the flat up to scratch.

A brand new kitchen was installed and a dilapidated bathroom was converted into a wet room, he told the court.

He said he had been approached by Miss Thomas's mum, Heather, in February 2013 and asked to sign a contract to protect both of their interests.

He had discussed the contract with Miss Thomas and they had decided it would be in their interests to sign.

But, giving evidence, Miss Thomas denied ever having done so.

She said her mother had suggested the contract, but that she was vehemently opposed to it.

When she found out it had been drawn up and Gareth had signed, she was livid.

'I was angry that he would get any share, because it was entirely my property,' she told the judge.

Mr Powell's barrister, Robert Deacon, accused Miss Thomas of lying in the witness box, putting to her that she knew about the contract because they had discussed it and she had signed.

'That's not true, I didn't,' she replied. 'Why would I sign something I was completely against? The only person that was for this was my mother.

'I didn't see the need for it. I didn't think Gareth would ever claim any part of the property.'

Miss Thomas's mother told the judge she had arranged for the contract because she wanted to protect her daughter, saying it was an 'option if things went bad'.

However, Miss Thomas was against it, did not sign and, when it caused friction in the family, she tore up the copy that Mr Powell did sign.

Mr Deacon suggested that she had only torn up the document because she did not want the contract coming to light after the couple's breakup.

But she responded: 'I tore it up about a year before because I was trying to get the relationship back on track.'

Miss Thomas's barrister Nicholas Trompeter said Mr Powell was a 31-year-old man, now living with his parents, who had not worked full-time since 2010.

'One of the issues in this case is who paid for the materials used in order to improve the flat,' he said.

'There is some doubt as to whether you were ever in a position to pay for anything.'

Mr Powell said he had received the cash from his parents as a loan.