Pensioner forfeits £575,000 home following court dispute over parking her car

A pensioner who lost her £575,000 home in a neighbour dispute over how she parked her Ford Focus has lost another court fight to win it back.

When Marie Potter, 75, moved into her house in Bennett’s Avenue, Shirley, Croydon, in 1998, neighbour Kirsten McGowan was already there and their families initially got on well, she says.

But the two women fell out disastrously when a row over Mrs Potter’s Ford Focus car blocking access to her neighbour’s garage over their shared driveway ended up in court.

Following a hearing at Bromley County Court in August 2020, Mrs Potter was ordered to pay around £70,000 in costs and damages to her neighbour.

A year later 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 – Mrs Potter was evicted from her house.

Her belongings were also later removed and put into storage at her expense.

Three years later and with the property still unsold, Mrs Potter went to London’s High Court, countersuing Mrs 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, as well as claiming over £250,000 in damages from her neighbour.

But she has now lost her case after the judge ruled the order taking the house was made lawfully.

Commenting on the disastrous outcome for the pensioner, the judge said: ‘This is yet another cautionary tale about the financial consequences of neighbour disputes for those without deep pockets.’

Mrs Potter had told the court in a witness statement that she moved into her house over 25 years ago and ‘had managed to get along well enough’ with her neighbour Mrs McGowan for many years.

But the two families eventually began to clash over Mrs McGowan’s complaints that the way Mrs Potter’s car was parked blocked access for her and her family over their shared driveway to her garage at the back of her property.

She sued at Bromley County Court and in August 2020 won around £30,000 damages, plus legal costs, which led to a charging order of around £70,000 being made against Mrs Potter’s house in December 2020.

In December 2021, Mrs McGowan’s lawyers went on to acquire an order for sale of her neighbour’s home and in April 2023 a warrant of possession was issued, and Mrs Potter was evicted from her house, with her neighbour’s lawyers being put in charge of selling it to recover her debt.

Mrs Potter, who has been living in rented accommodation in Bromley for the last three years with her possessions in storage, claimed that the county court order that her house was to be sold was invalid and that the property should be handed back to her.

She also counterclaimed for over £250,000 compensation for the losses she says she has suffered due to being removed from her home, including the costs of rent and storage and a depreciation in the value of her house of over £100,000.

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 in fact had jurisdiction to order the sale of properties with charges or mortgages upon them up to £350,000 in value, meaning her bid to get the house back is doomed.

Giving judgment, he said: ‘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.’

Going on to find against Mrs 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.’