Gareth Powell is suing his ex-girlfriend for repairs he did to this London flat. Picture: Paul Keogh

Gareth Powell, a self-employed builder, and advertising executive Chloe Thomas had planned to do up a London flat and sell it for profit.

Ms Thomas, 28, had the funds to buy the $579,000 (£315,000) property in 2012.

Mr Powell, 31, who had little cash, was to do the work to make the “uninhabitable” flat ready to sell.

But he was left without a penny for his efforts when the couple split in 2014 — because the apartment was in Ms Thomas’s sole name.

Now he is suing his former girlfriend-of-eight-years for the $85,000 (£60,000) he claims he is now owed.

Mr Powell claims Ms Thomas betrayed him by going back on an agreement that he would be entitled to a third of the profit if they split.

Ms Thomas, left, bought the property in her name. Picture: Paul KeoghSource:Supplied

At Central London County Court, he said: “The discussions we had were that we would embark on this venture together.

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

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

The “uninhabitable” flat had poor water pressure and no heating when the couple moved in, the court heard.

Using cash loaned by his parents, he spent more than $24,750 (£14,000) on materials, which he then used to bring the flat up to scratch, including installing a new kitchen and bathroom.

Mr Powell said he had been approached by Ms Thomas’s mum, Heather, in February 2013 and asked to sign a contract to protect both of their interests.

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

Not happy: Gareth Powell wants to be compensated for the renovations. Picture: Paul KeoghSource:Supplied

But Ms Thomas denied this, saying that she was opposed to it and was enraged when she found out Mr Powell had signed.

She told the judge: “I was angry that he would get any share, because it was entirely my property.”

Mr Powell’s barrister, Robert Deacon, accused Ms Thomas of lying in the witness box.

Ms Thomas’s mother said she had arranged for the contract because she wanted to protect her daughter, but Ms Thomas never signed.

When it caused friction in the family, she tore up the copy Mr Powell had signed.

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.”

Judge Baucher will give her ruling on the case at a later date.