Pensioner Forcibly Removed From Home After Lengthy Boundary Dispute
A 77-year-old pensioner has been evicted from her property following a protracted five-year legal battle with her neighbour over a mere 1ft strip of land. The dispute, centred in Hamworthy, Poole, Dorset, culminated in bailiffs arriving at Jenny Field's door to execute the court-ordered removal.
Origins of the Bitter Neighbour Disagreement
The conflict began in 2020 when neighbour Pauline Clark, 64, erected a boundary fence that Jenny Field claimed encroached 12 inches onto her land. In response, Field hired contractors two months later to remove the 6ft fence and reposition it to reclaim what she believed was her property.
This action prompted Clark to initiate legal proceedings, resulting in a court ruling that ordered Field to cover the cost of the dismantled fence and approximately £21,000 in legal fees at that time. Field refused to accept this outcome, leading to multiple subsequent court appearances that dramatically escalated the total legal bill to £113,000.
Court Proceedings and Final Judgement
Last September, a county court judge dismissed Field's final appeal, which included allegations of fraud that the judge described as 'totally without merit'. Judge Ross Fentem issued a deadline of December 6 for Field to settle the £113,000 debt, warning that failure to do so would result in the forced sale of her home.
Judge Fentem characterised the situation as 'a very long-running boundary dispute' and noted that Field had repeatedly attempted to relitigate the original case without success. He stated: 'I have no confidence at all that the claimant will be paid what she is owed except by an order for sale. The order for sale is a last resort and Draconian remedy.'
The Eviction and Aftermath
When the deadline passed without payment, Clark's solicitors successfully applied for an eviction notice. Field had reportedly failed to put her property on the market and continued sending correspondence to the court maintaining her position.
During the eviction, Field placed a sign on her front door declaring the removal invalid and alleging harassment. After being removed from the premises, she repeatedly rang the doorbell requesting re-entry, stating: 'They've changed the locks and won't let me back in. How can I be evicted for something I haven't done? I have nowhere else to go. This is my home and my property.'
Field expressed her distress about the situation, saying: 'I have had five years of this rubbish. I am really upset by the whole thing. I have been put through hell.'
Legal Perspective and Financial Implications
Clark's solicitor, Anna Curtis, noted that there had been 'no discussion or offer of settlement' from Field's side regarding the substantial debt. Curtis indicated that sufficient equity existed in Field's property to cover the legal fees while still allowing her to purchase a comfortable retirement property mortgage-free with cash remaining.
The court has permitted Field to return to collect her belongings. The sale of her home will cover Clark's £113,000 legal costs, transferring the property to her neighbour as settlement of the debt incurred through the lengthy legal proceedings.
