Pensioner who misplaced £575,000 dwelling after row with neighbour over how she parked her Ford Focus loses courtroom battle to get it again
A pensioner who lost her £575,000 home after getting into a parking dispute with her neighbour has failed to win it back in court.
Marie Potter moved into her house in Shirley, Croydon, in 1998, but was evicted in 2023 following the row about how she parked her Ford Focus.
The 75-year-old told the court how she initially got on well with neighbour Kirsten McGowan and her family.
But the two women fell out after Ms Potter’s vehicle blocked access to her neighbour’s garage, with the dispute over their shared driveway ending up in court.
Following a hearing at Bromley County Court in August 2020, the pensioner was ordered to pay around £70,000 in costs and damages to her neighbour and the following year the debt was charged against her home – which was then worth £575,000.
That was followed by an order for sale and possession of the property and in April 2023 – due to the judgment debt still being unpaid – Ms Potter was evicted from her house.
Three years later and with the property still unsold, Ms Potter went to London’s High Court, countersuing Ms McGowan in a bid to get her house back.
Representing herself with assistance from a retired solicitor who attends her church, she argued before Judge David Halpern KC that the order taking possession of her property was invalid. She also attempted to claim more than £250,000 in damages from her neighbour.
Marie Potter, 75, moved into her house in Shirley, Croydon, in 1998, but was evicted in 2023 following the row about how she parked her Ford Focus
But she has now lost her case after the judge ruled the order taking the house was made lawfully.
Ms Potter told the court she clashed with the neighbouring family over Ms McGowan’s complaints that her car blocked access to her garage at the back of the property.
Ms McGowan sued at Bromley County Court and in August 2020 won £30,000 in damages, plus legal costs.
This led to a charging order of around £70,000 being made against Ms Potter’s house in December 2020.
One year later in December 2021, Ms McGowan’s lawyers acquired an order for sale of her neighbour’s home and in April 2023 a warrant of possession was issued.
As a result Ms Potter was evicted from her house, with her neighbour’s lawyers being put in charge of selling it to recover her debt.
Her belongings were also later removed and put into storage at her expense.
Ms Potter, who has been living in rented accommodation in Bromley for the last three years, claimed the county court order that her house was to be sold was invalid and the property should be handed back to her.
She also counterclaimed for more than £250,000 in compensation for the losses she says she has suffered due to being removed from her home, including the costs of rent, storage and a depreciation in the value of her house of over £100,000.
The row centred around a shared driveway between the homes of Ms Potter (left) and Ms McGowan (right)
She based her argument on a court rule which she said means that an order for sale of a property cannot be enforced in a county court if there is a third party charge or mortgage on it exceeding £30,000 – as is the case with her house.
But giving his ruling, Judge Halpern said that the county court had jurisdiction to order the sale of properties with charges or mortgages upon them up to £350,000 in value.
Giving judgment, he said: ‘This is yet another cautionary tale about the financial consequences of neighbour disputes for those without deep pockets. The current proceedings arise out of previous proceedings between the parties over a shared driveway.
‘An order [was] made on 26 August 2020 requiring Mrs Potter to pay Mrs McGowan £30,452.95 damages, plus £27,000 costs.
‘Mrs Potter failed to pay all or any of these sums. Needless to say, the amount due to Mrs McGowan continues to rise as interest accrues and more costs are incurred.
‘Mrs Potter has counterclaimed for extensive relief, alleging… that Mrs McGowan has committed a trespass in taking possession and is in breach of her duties as mortgagee in possession.’
He said that before any trial of that claim could take place he had to first decide whether the seizure and sale of the house was valid as a preliminary issue.
‘The issues which are raised in [Ms Potter’s] counterclaim are wholly or largely dependent upon Ms Potter succeeding on both preliminary issues,’ he pointed out.
Going on to find against Ms Potter, he concluded: ‘The county court has jurisdiction to enforce a charging order by sale where the amount owing does not exceed the limit of its equity jurisdiction, which is £350,000. The order was therefore validly made.’
