A pensioner is locked in a high-stakes legal battle worth hundreds of thousands of pounds after losing her home to a neighbour following a protracted and bitter dispute over a parked car on a shared driveway. Marie Potter, 75, was evicted from her Croydon property in 2023 and is now fighting to reclaim it, arguing that the court order that led to her displacement was invalid and beyond the jurisdiction of the county court.
The Origins of the Neighbourly Conflict
The conflict began after Ms Potter moved into her house on Bennett's Avenue in Shirley, Croydon, in 1998. Her neighbour, Kirsten McGowan, was already living next door. Initially, their relationship was amicable, but tensions escalated over Ms Potter's Ford Focus, which Ms McGowan claimed was blocking access to her garage via their shared driveway.
Legal Proceedings and Financial Consequences
The dispute culminated in a hearing at Bromley County Court in August 2020. Ms Potter was ordered to pay approximately £70,000 in costs and damages to her neighbour. This debt was subsequently charged against her home, which was then valued at around £530,000. An order for sale and possession followed, leading to Ms Potter's eviction in April 2023. Her belongings were removed and placed into storage at her own expense.
However, three years on, the property remains unsold, and its value has reportedly plummeted to £425,000 due to flood damage and disrepair. Ms Potter, representing herself with assistance from a retired solicitor from her church, is now challenging the original order at London's High Court. She claims it was beyond the county court's power to make and is countersuing Ms McGowan for over £250,000 in compensation for her losses.
Key Legal Arguments in the High Court
In a witness statement to Judge David Halpern KC, Ms Potter explained that she had lived in her house for over 25 years and had managed to get along well enough with Ms McGowan for many years. The clash began when Ms McGowan complained that the way Ms Potter's car was parked blocked access over their shared driveway to her garage.
Ms Potter's legal argument hinges on a court rule which she says states 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. She contends that the order enforcing the sale—made in Croydon County Court in December 2021—was beyond the power of the county court judge to make.
Counterarguments from the Neighbour's Legal Team
Barrister Jonathan Edwards, representing Ms McGowan, argued that the order for sale should stand. He told the judge that there are two pieces of legislation relating to charges over properties and orders for sale in county courts. One suggests the limit is £30,000, but the other suggests up to £350,000 is the correct figure.
Mr Edwards urged the judge to rule that the law should be interpreted as allowing county court orders for sale of a property in circumstances like those of Ms Potter with a charge on it of up to £350,000. He stated, "The defendant's premise is that if she is right about the jurisdictional limit then the order was unlawful and of no legal effect. Her contention is that her eviction and the efforts to sell the property were all unlawful."
He added, "The short answer to this is that the defendant's contention is wrong. The order for sale was not made in excess of the jurisdiction. Even though the county court is a court of limited jurisdiction, an order which it makes in excess of its jurisdiction is not automatically a nullity."
Current Status and Implications
Ms Potter has been living in rented accommodation in Bromley for the last three years, with her possessions in storage. She is seeking compensation for losses including rent, storage costs, and a depreciation in the value of her house of over £100,000. The judge reserved his ruling at the end of a day-long hearing, describing it as an "important" legal point that requires careful consideration.
This case highlights the severe consequences that can arise from neighbour disputes and the complexities of property law in England. The outcome could set a significant precedent for similar cases involving county court jurisdiction and orders for sale related to charged properties.
