THE SON in law of a peer sent an obscene WhatsApp message to his ‘sugarbaby’ when she broke off their relationship – after he gave her £9,000 toward the deposit on a Range Rover.
Gavin Ian Reid, 70, had already handed Summertown woman Danielle Fraser almost £6,000 in two monthly allowance payments when paid the sum into her bank account on August 21, 2020.
After the relationship broke down barely a fortnight later he sent tutor Ms Fraser, whom he’d met on ‘sugar daddy’ website seeking.com, an abusive WhatsApp message.
That message, apparently coming from the username ‘IsisIan’, scalded: “Wasting no time looking for the next sucker, then. Don’t forget to tell them you don’t f***.”
The septuagenarian from Dorchester, near Wallingford, told Oxford County Court yesterday that the £9,000 was a loan.
Mr Reid, whose wife the Hon Mrs Angela Reid is a daughter of the third Lord Amherst, accused his former ‘sugar baby’ of ‘wrongful conversion or at worst theft’.
However, he accepted that he hadn’t told her at the time that the £9,000 was a loan – or a gift.
His small claims case was thrown out of court by District Judge Richard Lumb at Oxford County Court yesterday afternoon.
The judge said the burden was on Mr Reid to establish it was more likely than not there was a contract between him and Ms Fraser and what the terms were.
Even on Mr Reid’s own evidence his case failed, the court heard. Dismissing the claim, Judge Lumb said: “The highest it comes is that at the time he made the payment he had in the back of his mind he intended it to be a loan but he accepts that was never expressed or indeed discussed with Ms Fraser at the time.
“Any discussion about repayment wasn’t made until some six days later on August 27 and indeed that wasn’t even really intended to be a repayment, it was simply a reduction in the amount of the regular monthly payment.”
The court heard Ms Fraser and Mr Reid met on a ‘sugar daddy’ website, Seeking.com, in May 2020. Their relationship, described in court as platonic, was initially a good one.
In a defence statement, released to the press by the court after an application by this newspaper, Ms Fraser said: “I understand that [under the terms and conditions of the website] the Sugar Daddies are allowed up to four Sugar Babies under the terms of the website and therefore the understanding was that as someone younger we could have a fun relationship and that he would treat me and make gifts to me.”
The pair would meet for lunch, daytrips to Bristol or walks in Oxford. It was suggested that on one such walk Mr Reid hinted at setting Ms Fraser up in a ‘£500,000’ flat in Wolvercote, although he described the idea that he would ‘fork out’ the deposit as ‘wishful thinking’.
He also agreed to pay her a monthly allowance of £2,925, starting in early July. “She was looking for more than that, I was looking to pay less than that. We reached an agreement in the middle,” he told Ms Fraser’s barrister on Friday.
On August 14, 2020, the pair met in The Crown pub, Woodstock. Ms Fraser complained about the state of her VW hatchback, which she said was on its ‘last legs’ and had ‘limped back’ from a trip to London. She had her heart set on a Range Rover but, because she was not on the electoral roll and ‘tended not to work within the UK’, had a poor credit history and would struggle to get finance.
The Range Rover she wanted was sold through a company called Saxton, which needed a £10,000 deposit.
Mr Reid was said to have used his credit card to make a £1,000 down payment to hold the car until they were able to view it.
When they went to the dealership he was said to have told her to inform them he was her godfather.
He wanted to pay the remaining £9,000 deposit direct to the garage, whereas Ms Reid was anxious to have the sum in her bank account to show Saxton she was ‘good for the money’ when it came to the financing agreement.
Despite his apparent reservations and it being, in the words of the judge ‘contrary to his interests and his wish’, Mr Reid was said to have transferred the £9,000 on August 21.
At that point, it was not mentioned whether the payment was a loan or a gift.
During a meeting on August 27, however, it was agreed between them that Mr Reid would reduce the monthly allowance payments by £1,000.
Mr Reid claimed it was always in the back of his mind that he always intended the £9,000 to be a loan, but accepted it was never said out loud to Ms Fraser on August 21 or 27.
Ms Fraser claimed that, by this stage in the relationship, she was getting unwanted sexual advances from her ‘sugar daddy’. That allegation was categorically denied by the older man who, when it was suggested by the blonde’s barrister that he wanted to progress the relationship ‘to be more physical or sexual’, replied ‘no, I don’t think I would’.
On Ms Fraser’s account the reduced monthly payment of £1,925 was not paid on September 1. She took this to be evidence of controlling behaviour by a man who was ‘trying to advance the relationship’, again an allegation denied by Mr Reid.
The ‘daddy’ told the court he always intended to make the September payment, probably at or after they met as planned at The Trout pub, Wolvercote, on September 3.
On that day, he said he’d messaged Ms Fraser to say he was running late and got a reply asking ‘who’s this?’ leaving him concerned.
He later sent her a message, given to the court and apparently from the username ‘IsisIan’, in which he said: “Wasting no time looking for the next sucker, then. Don’t forget to tell them you don’t f***.”
In his closing remarks to the judge, Mr Reid accused his former platonic interest of ‘disappearing off to Switzerland in this car [the VW] which was last heard of limping back from London’.
He added: “She hadn’t spent the £9,000, she’d kept it in her account. I content that is tantamount to wrongful conversion or at worst theft because it was given to her for a specific purpose – the deposit on the vehicle – and it wasn’t used for that.”
A previous version of this article stated that the judge told the parties the £1,000 reduction in Ms Fraser's monthly allowance was not intended to be a repayment but a 'reduction in the amount of the regular monthly repayment'. It should have read a 'reduction in the amount of the regular monthly payment'. We are happy to correct this error.
Keep up to date with all the latest news on our website, or follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram
For news updates straight to your inbox, sign up to our newsletter here
Have you got a story for us? Contact our newsdesk on news@nqo.com or 01865 425 445.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel