AITA for not letting my colleague “borrow” my charger after she’s kept two of mine before?

A 23-year-old office worker is wondering if they’re being petty after refusing to lend their desk phone charger to a colleague. They keep a charger at work because their phone battery drains quickly, but this colleague has “borrowed” it twice before—both times failing to return it promptly and returning it weeks later looking worn out. Each time the worker had to go to her desk and ask for it back.

Yesterday she approached again, phone at 5%, asking to use the charger “just for a bit.” The worker politely declined, explaining the history. She rolled her eyes, said they were making a big deal over “a simple charger,” and told them to be more generous. Now some coworkers think the worker is petty, but they feel they’re just protecting their property after being taken advantage of twice. AITA?

‘AITA for not letting my colleague “borrow” my charger after she’s kept two of mine before?’

The worker keeps a charger at their desk because their phone battery dies quickly:

Yesterday she asked again, and the worker refused based on past experience:

This is a classic case of boundary-setting after repeated boundary violations. The colleague’s pattern—borrowing without returning promptly and returning items damaged—shows a lack of respect for other people’s property. The worker is entirely reasonable in refusing to lend again; past behavior predicts future behavior, and they’re protecting their own belongings.

The colleague’s reaction (eye-rolling, calling it a “big deal,” demanding generosity) is entitled and dismissive. It shifts blame to the victim rather than acknowledging her own irresponsibility. The coworker opinions calling the worker “petty” are misguided—they’re not the ones repeatedly losing chargers. True generosity is reciprocal; one-sided “borrowing” is taking advantage.

The worker handled it calmly and factually—no yelling, no personal attacks—just a clear “no” based on history. That’s healthy boundary-setting. The only minor improvement would be a direct statement like “After the last two times, I’m not comfortable lending it anymore.” But even without that, they did nothing wrong.

Ultimately, no one is entitled to someone else’s personal property, especially after abusing the privilege twice. The worker is NTA—they’re simply refusing to be taken advantage of again.

Take a look at the comments from fellow users:

The Reddit community overwhelmingly supported the worker (NTA), calling the colleague entitled and praising the worker for setting a healthy boundary.

Most people said the colleague is the problem and the worker is right to refuse:

You’re not the asshole for protecting your property after being taken advantage of twice. Chargers aren’t communal office supplies—especially when someone repeatedly “forgets” to return them and returns them damaged. Saying no was reasonable and fair.

The coworker’s eye-roll and guilt-tripping (“be more generous”) is entitled; she’s the one who abused the privilege. Your coworkers calling you petty are missing the point—they can lend their chargers if they feel so strongly. Offering to charge her phone at your desk (charger stays put) is a generous compromise if you ever want to help again. You did nothing wrong—good boundaries aren’t petty, they’re self-respect. Have you ever had a similar office mooching situation? How did you handle it? Share below—we’re on your side! 🔌