Well that was bloody stupid.
A pensioner who lost a legal fight with a neighbour over where he put his bins out is now bankrupt as he says he was left with a £1million legal bill.
Geoff Carter, 77, first went to war with his farmer neighbour Trevor Goldsworthy over the weekly bin collections in rural west Cornwall in 2018.
He claimed Mr Goldsworthy’s rubbish, which was left opposite his drive, had blocked access and attracted flies.
These things can be annoying, I agree. My neighbours often make parking difficult and one day, I had to wake one of them so I could get out to go to work. Mind you, he didn’t do it again.
As part of the row, Mr Carter’s Skoda Fabia was seen on CCTV being picked up and moved from outside his home by a telehandler, driven by Mr Goldsworthy’s son Simon.
Okay, maybe not that bad…
After a court initially ruled against him, Mr Carter appealed against the decision, which was also unsuccessful.
He then took the fight to the high court, but his claims were rejected for a third time, leaving him with £420,000 worth of legal fees, which he paid for using an equity release on his home and the sale of a foreign property.
Or that.
After the latest court ruling against him, Mr Carter will also now be liable for a legal bill of over £400,000 from the other side.
Surveys, expert reports and renting another property to avoid homelessness has also run up a six figure bill for the pensioner.
He claims he was initially told that the court case would cost between £60,000 and £80,000 and if he lost it would be doubled.
Auctioneers have told him the best sale price he would achieve is between £250,000 and £280,000, having once been valued at £450,000.
But his efforts to sell the home have been hampered as Mr Carter has to tell prospective buyers a court ruled they don’t have a right of access.
And an order imposed by the court also means he can’t sell without Mr Goldsworthy’s permission.
There’s a moral here somewhere. In these cases, there is only one winner and it ain’t the plaintiff, nor is it the defendant. There’s a lot that isn’t said here – why was his car moved with a telehandler, for example? What steps were taken to amicably resolve the situation? All that said, if it couldn’t be resolved, selling up and moving would have made sense. Going to law over a spat like this is monumentally stupid.
No wiser having read the linked article: modern journalism —useless.
Seems to me that it has little to do with rubbish, a clue might be in the phrase ” has to tell prospective buyers a court ruled they don’t have a right of access”. My guess, the neighbour put the rubbish there because it’s their land, and the car was moved because it had no right to be there.
No doubt. I’d be willing to bet that he was advised by his lawyer not to appeal the original decision (probably not to bring the case in the first place, quite honestly), and told that it would cost him dearly if he did. But a fool’s money is as good as a wise man’s. The lawyers’ dictum is that if a client instructs you to do something, then as long as it doesn’t require you to break the law, even if you’ve advised against it, you do it.
The reason is simple. If lawyers refused work on the grounds that it was pointless or stupid, then the likes of Carter would be in the papers moaning about injustice or some such. No lawyer will take up his case! It’s an outrage! I know for a fact that the overwhelming majority of lawyers are extremely careful to foster a reputation for fair dealing, but sometimes you just can’t win.
The fuckwittery is strong on this one skywalker!
If you want to know where to leave your rubbish on collection day speak to the council who collect it. Having worked for the council for years, in that department, I dealt regularly with these types of complaints. They all got dealt with no cost to either side. I suspect the farmer owned the land and he granted access to the property that he now has withdrawn. Lawyers always win and over a bit of rubbish it’s not worth it, if it annoyed him that much he should have moved afterall if he’d won the case he’d still have to live with the same neighbour.
I wonder how anyone can reach the age of 77 without acquiring a lifetime’s worth of accumulated wisdom. How is it possible to be 77 years old and still be such a complete and utter fool? I wonder if he has any kids, they must be overjoyed to see their inheritance being blown on this idiocy.
“How is it possible to be 77 years old and still be such a complete and utter fool?”
Speaking as an Old Git myself retirement can be dangerous… without the distraction of employment and regular interaction with others perceived offences or medical symptoms can dominate one’s thoughts, well beyond the bounds of rationality.
Speaking only for myself, I’m much more jovial and benign towards my fellow man since I retired. I’ve always been that way anyway but now even more so. I had a reasonably satisfying job but even so, work was really the only source of negativity in my life so now things are pretty good.