A pensioner who misplaced her £575,000 house to her neighbour in a disastrous dispute over how she parked her Ford Focus has misplaced a court fight to win it again.
When Marie Potter, 75, moved into her house in Bennett’s Avenue, Shirley, Croydon, in 1998, neighbour Kirsten McGowan was already there and their households initially bought on properly, she says.
But the 2 ladies fell out disastrously when a row over Mrs Potter’s Ford Focus automobile blocking entry to her neighbour’s storage over their shared driveway ended up in court.
Following a listening to at Bromley County Court in August 2020, the pensioner was ordered to pay round £70,000 in prices and damages to her neighbour and the next yr the debt was charged towards her dwelling – which was then value £575,000.
That was adopted by an order on the market and possession of the property and in April 2023 – as a result of judgment debt nonetheless being unpaid – Mrs Potter was evicted from her house.
Her belongings had been additionally later eliminated and put into storage at her expense.
Three years later and with the property nonetheless unsold, Mrs Potter went to London’s High Court, countersuing Mrs McGowan in a bid to get her house again.
Representing herself with help from a retired solicitor who attends her church, she argued earlier than Judge David Halpern KC that the order taking possession of her property was invalid, in addition to claiming over £250,000 in damages from her neighbour.
But she has now misplaced her case after the decide dominated the order taking the house was made lawfully.
Commenting on the disastrous final result for the non secular pensioner, the decide stated: “This is yet another cautionary tale about the financial consequences of neighbour disputes for those without deep pockets.”
Mrs Potter had instructed the court in a witness assertion that she moved into her house over 25 years in the past and “had managed to get along well enough” with her neighbour Mrs McGowan for a few years.
However the 2 households ultimately started to conflict over Mrs McGowan’s complaints that the best way Mrs Potter’s automobile was parked blocked entry for her and her household over their shared driveway to her storage behind her property.
She sued at Bromley County Court and in August 2020 received round £30,000 damages, plus authorized prices, which led to a charging order of round £70,000 being made towards Mrs Potter’s house in December 2020.
In December 2021, Mrs McGowan’s legal professionals went on to amass an order on the market of her neighbour’s dwelling and in April 2023 a warrant of possession was issued and Mrs Potter was evicted from her house, with her neighbour’s legal professionals being put in cost of promoting it to get better her debt.
Mrs Potter, who has been residing in rented lodging in Bromley for the final three years with her possessions in storage, claimed that the county court order that her house was to be bought was invalid and that the property needs to be handed again to her.
She additionally counterclaimed for over £250,000 compensation for the losses she says she has suffered resulting from being faraway from her dwelling, together with the prices of lease and storage and a depreciation in the worth of her house of over £100,000.
She primarily based her argument on a court rule which she stated signifies that an order on the market of a property can’t be enforced in a county court if there’s a third celebration cost or mortgage on it exceeding £30,000 – as is the case with her house.
But giving his ruling, Judge Halpern stated that the county court in truth had jurisdiction to order the sale of properties with expenses or mortgages upon them as much as £350,000 in worth, that means her bid to get the house again is doomed.
Giving judgment, he stated: “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 prices.
“Mrs Potter failed to pay all or any of these sums.
“Needless to say, the quantity resulting from Mrs McGowan continues to rise as curiosity accrues and extra prices 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 continued, explaining that earlier than any trial of that declare might happen he needed to first resolve whether or not the seizure and sale of the house was legitimate as a preliminary challenge.
“The issues which are raised in [Mrs Potter’s] counterclaim are wholly or largely dependent upon Mrs Potter succeeding on both preliminary issues,” he identified.
Going on to seek out towards 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.”
