Pensioner Loses £575K Croydon Home in Driveway Dispute

In March 2026, the High Court in London dismissed 75-year-old Marie Potter’s challenge to the sale of her Croydon home, concluding that the county court’s order to force its sale was lawful. Potter, evicted in April 2023 after failing to pay a £70,000 judgment debt arising from a driveway dispute with neighbour Kirsten McGowan, had sought to reclaim the £575,000 house (now reportedly worth about £425,000).

Mr Justice Halpern ruled that county courts can enforce charging-order sales of up to £350,000 of equity – far above the £30,000 limit Potter claimed applied – and dismissed Potter’s case and counterclaims.*

On 26 August 2020, Bromley County Court ordered Potter to pay £30,452.95 in damages and £27,000 in legal costs to her neighbour, Ms. McGowan, after Potter’s Ford Focus repeatedly blocked the shared driveway to McGowan’s garage. Potter did not pay, so on 30 December 2020 a final county-court charging order was placed on Potter’s property (25 Bennetts Avenue, Shirley, CR0 8AL) for £69,351.07. The house, a freehold semi-detached valued at ~£575,000 in 2020, had been Potter’s home since 1998.

On 13 May 2021 McGowan sought a sale order in Croydon County Court. At a remote hearing on 15 December 2021, Deputy District Judge Turner granted an order (29 December 2021, varied 19 Jan 2022) compelling Potter to sell the property for no less than £575,000 (later reduced) or pay £77,373.56 by 28 January 2022 to avert sale.

The order also created a 3,000-year lease to McGowan under s.90 of the Law of Property Act 1925 to enable the sale. Potter failed to comply, and on 26 April 2023 a warrant of possession was enforced – Potter was evicted and her belongings placed in storage at her expense. To date the house remains unsold and its value has “plummeted” to an estimated £425,000 amid flood damage and disrepair.

In early 2026 Potter (centre, outside court) pressed her case before Mr Justice Halpern in London’s Business and Property Courts. The judge found the 2021 county-court sale order was within jurisdiction. Potter had personally argued that a 1991 rule capped county-court mortgage or charging-order sales at £30,000.

McGowan’s barrister, Jonathan Edwards, countered that the county court’s equity jurisdiction covers up to £350,000 under the County Courts Act 1984. Edwards told the court that the “order for sale was not made in excess of jurisdiction” and that Potter’s eviction and attempted sale were therefore lawful. Potter’s premiss, he said, that the sale was “unlawful” was “wrong”.

Judge Halpern agreed with McGowan. In his 16 March 2026 written judgment (McGowan v Potter [2026] EWHC 595 (Ch)), he confirmed that enforcing a charging order by sale is an inherent county-court power (via its equity jurisdiction) and that s.90–91 LPA 1925 are “ancillary” to it. Thus a county court can order sale to enforce a debt up to its £350,000 limit. Potter’s argument that s.90 capped it at £30,000 was a “plain meaning” reading he rejected.

He noted this interpretation “renders inconsistent” the County Courts Act itself. Even if an order did exceed jurisdiction, Halpern stressed it is not automatically void: a court order “must be obeyed unless and until it has been set aside”.

As a result, Halpern declared Potter’s sale order was validly made, and accordingly Potter’s case was dismissed. He echoed the Bromley judge’s warning: “This is yet another cautionary tale about the financial consequences of neighbour disputes for those without deep pockets.”.

Potter’s countersuit and £250,000 counterclaim against McGowan (for rent, storage costs and alleged home-value loss) likewise failed under the ruling. Neither side appealed further, so McGowan’s lawyers will proceed to sell the house to recover the debt.

Potter, a retired teacher, has been living in rented accommodation in Bromley since eviction. The Croydon community has not formally commented, but legal commentators note the case underscores how everyday neighbour quarrels can escalate into ruinous litigation. The property remains charged to McGowan. Under Halpern’s judgment, if Potter was correct she could seek to set aside the sale order (in county court), but since she lost, the court order stands.

In practice, the house will be sold under the existing order to satisfy the £69,351 debt, plus costs and accruing interest.