The Challenge:
Our client faced a significant hurdle after paying £5,000 upfront for cosmetic surgery that never took place. Upon learning that the business had ceased operations, she issued a writ against the clinic’s trading name. Recovery promptly sent a Notice of Enforcement (NOE), which went ignored.
Our Enforcement Agent (EA) made two visits to the clinic, finding it closed both times. On the third visit, the EA encountered someone claiming to be the landlord but without proof. The premises, still operational and signed in the judgment debtor’s trading style, suggested a potential on-site recovery of funds.
The Solution:
Our EA employed a strategic approach, persisting through initial setbacks. On the third visit, despite the landlord’s lack of evidence, the premises’ operational status under the clinic’s trading name led to the EA’s decisive action.
Faced with imminent removal of goods, the purported landlord paid the full amount of £5,000 to the EA. The landlord’s later request for a refund, backed by an outdated Statutory Declaration, was deemed insufficient.
A subsequent Statutory Declaration, produced post-enforcement, failed to alter the enforcement’s context, ensuring the claimant’s funds were rightfully recovered.
The Impact:
Our EA’s diligence and thorough investigation resulted in a successful recovery of £5,000 for the claimant. This case underscores the importance of persistence, meticulous verification, and strategic enforcement actions. It highlights the complexities of dealing with businesses operating under multiple entities and the necessity for stringent verification of ownership and liability claims.
Speak to us today:
Email: marketing@marstonholdings.co.uk
Or visit: High Court Enforcement – Marston Holdings
