Pensioner’s court fail after losing £575k house in neighbour’s fight over how she parked her Ford Focus
A pensioner who lost his £575,000 home to a neighbor over a nasty dispute over how he parked his Ford Focus has lost his case to win it back.
Marie Potter, 75, says when she moved into her home in Bennett’s Avenue, Shirley, Croydon, in 1998, her neighbor Kirsten McGowan was already there and their families initially got on well.
But a nasty row broke out between the two women when an argument over Miss Potter’s Ford Focus car blocking access to her neighbour’s garage via the shared driveway ended up in court.
Following a hearing at Bromley County Court in August 2020, the pensioner was ordered to pay nearly £70,000 in costs and damages to his neighbour, and the following year the debt, then worth £575,000, was collected against his home.
An order for the sale and possession of the property followed, and in April 2023 – with the judgment debt still outstanding – Ms Potter was evicted from her home.
His belongings were later removed and placed in storage at his own expense.
Three years later, with the property still unsold, Mrs Potter went to the High Court in London and brought proceedings against Mrs McGowan in a bid to get her house back.
Representing herself with the help of a retired lawyer who attended her church, the woman argued before Judge David Halpern KC that the order seizing her property was invalid and sought compensation of more than £250,000 from her neighbour.
However, he lost his case after the judge ruled that the decision to take the house was legal.
Commenting on the religious pensioner’s disaster, the judge said: “This is yet another cautionary tale of the financial consequences of neighborly disputes for those without deep pockets.”
In a witness statement to the court, Ms Potter said she moved into the house more than 25 years ago and had “managed to get on well enough” with her neighbor Ms McGowan for many years.
But the two families eventually clashed over Ms McGowan’s complaints that the way Ms Potter’s car was parked blocked her and her family’s access via the shared driveway to her garage at the rear of her property.
He sued at Bromley County Court and won compensation of around £30,000 plus legal costs in August 2020, which led to a charging order being issued against Ms Potter’s home for around £70,000 in December 2020.
In December 2021, Ms McGowan’s lawyers obtained an order for the sale of her neighbour’s home and in April 2023 a repossession order was issued and Ms Potter was evicted from her home; His neighbor’s lawyers were tasked with selling the house to recoup the debt.
Ms Potter, who has been living in a rented house in Bromley for the past three years, keeping her belongings in storage, claimed the county court’s decision to sell her home was invalid and the property should be returned to her.
He also claimed more than £250,000 in damages for losses he said he had suffered as a result of his eviction, including rent and storage costs and the depreciation in value of his home of more than £100,000.
He based his claim on a court rule which he said meant that a sale order of a property could not be enforced in the district court if there was a third party charge or lien on it exceeding £30,000, as was the case with his own home.
But in making his decision, Judge Halpern said the district court did in fact have the power to order the sale of properties with mortgages or levies worth up to £350,000, meaning the bid to buy back the house had failed.
Delivering the verdict, he said: “This is another cautionary tale for those without deep pockets about the financial ramifications of neighborly disputes. “The current cases arise from previous transactions between parties over a shared driveway.
“An order [was] An order was made on 26 August 2020 requiring Ms Potter to pay Ms McGowan compensation of £30,452.95 plus costs of £27,000.
“Miss Potter was unable to pay all or any of these amounts.
“Needless to say, the amount owed to Ms McGowan continues to rise as interest accrues and more costs are incurred.
“Ms. Potter sought extensive damages, alleging that Ms. McGowan had trespassed and breached her duties as a mortgagee in taking possession of the property,” he continued, explaining that before any hearing could be held on that claim, she would first have to decide whether the seizure and sale of the home was valid as a preliminary issue.
“The issues that arise [Mrs Potter’s] “The counterclaim depends entirely or substantially on Ms. Potter’s success on both preliminary issues,” he said.
Going on to rule against Ms Potter, she concluded: “The district court has jurisdiction to impose a collection order by sale where the amount owed does not exceed its equity jurisdiction limit (£350,000). The order is therefore validly made.”
