How a Second Enforcement Visit Recovered £5,293 After Initial “No Assets” Claim

Introduction

When a recruitment company director claimed his residential property contained no business assets, it appeared the £3,752 judgment might never be recovered. The first enforcement visit seemed to confirm his story—just a private home with no visible company goods. But five months later, a second visit to the same property revealed business items and triggered full payment within hours.

This case demonstrates why persistence in debt enforcement proceedings matters and how sophisticated debtors use residential properties to shield business assets from High Court Enforcement Officers. Understanding these tactics can mean the difference between writing off a debt and achieving complete recovery.

The Background: When Success Fees Go Wrong

A small business owner paid £4,000 upfront to a recruitment consultancy for help selling her business. The conditional fee agreement was clear: the 10% success fee was only payable if a buyer was found by January 31, 2025.

No buyer materialized. The agreement terminated. The recruitment company unilaterally refunded just £273—keeping £3,727 without providing the contracted service.

After repeated demands failed, a County Court judgment was obtained in May 2025 for £3,752.42 plus £205 in costs. What should have been straightforward became a five-month lesson in debtor evasion tactics and the persistence required in modern debt recovery.

Initial Challenges: The Address Maze

Multiple Registered Addresses

The defendant company appeared at three different addresses:

Companies House registration: A shared office space in Marlborough housing over 40 companies—a clear accommodation address with no physical business presence.

Court records: An outdated address that didn’t match current company information.

Director’s residence: Mill Lodge in Taunton, Somerset—where the director actually lived and, as later discovered, operated the business.

This address confusion delayed the high court enforcement process by two weeks. Enforcement agents needed witness statements and court coordination to update records before obtaining the Writ of Control—the legal document authorizing seizure of assets.

The Compliance Stage Runaround

Once the Notice of Enforcement was sent in September 2025, the director employed classic delay tactics. He directed enforcement agents to his accountant, claiming only the accountant could discuss finances. The accountant then stated the company had “no assets”—a claim that would later prove strategically false.

This runaround consumed valuable time while the enforcement letter’s seven-day compliance period expired without payment.

First Enforcement Visit: The Residential Defense

What the Agent Found

On October 23, 2025, an enforcement agent visited Mill Lodge. The director was cooperative and made specific claims:

The property was his private residence
No business assets were kept there
The company remained active and trading
He was working with his accountant on payment
He would “attempt” to raise the outstanding balance

The agent saw no visible business equipment, inventory, or commercial items. Under enforcement regulations, agents cannot seize personal household goods from residential properties. The visit appeared to hit a dead end.

What Was Actually Happening

While the first visit found no actionable assets, it gathered critical intelligence:

The company was still trading (confirmed via Companies House)
The director had authority to make payment decisions
His communication pattern suggested avoidance rather than genuine inability to pay
The residential property defense was his primary strategy

This information proved invaluable for planning the second approach.

The Attempted Company Dissolution

A New Evasion Tactic Emerges

In December 2025—seven months after the judgment—the director applied to Companies House to strike off the company. This move attempted to dissolve the business entity before the debt was paid.

Under Section 1001 of the Companies Act 2006, applying for dissolution while outstanding liabilities exist is a criminal offense. Yet debtors frequently attempt this tactic, gambling that creditors won’t notice or object in time.

The Client’s Formal Objection

The claimant discovered the dissolution application and filed a formal objection with Companies House. This objection:

Cited the outstanding CCJ and enforcement proceedings
Referenced the legal prohibition against dissolving companies with debts
Provided evidence of the judgment and ongoing collection efforts
Prevented the striking off from proceeding

This intervention kept legal pressure on the director while enforcement continued.

Second Enforcement Visit: The Breakthrough

January 6, 2026: A Different Picture

The second enforcement visit occurred at 3:00 PM on January 6, 2026. This time, detailed inspection revealed what the first visit missed:

Evidence of business use: Items connected to the defendant’s recruitment business were present at the residential property.

Trading from home: The director was operating the business from the premises—mixing commercial activity with residential use.

Available assets: Business items that could legally be taken into control of goods were now visible and accessible.

The director’s initial response remained consistent: he claimed financial difficulties and inability to pay the now-£5,293.49 total.

The Critical Moment

When the agent informed the director that control would be taken of the identified business items, everything changed:

The director immediately stated he would contact his son for funds
He confirmed payment would be made between 5:00-6:00 PM that same day
By 9:51 PM, full payment of £5,293.49 was received

The credible, immediate threat of asset seizure accomplished in hours what five months of letters, calls, and negotiations could not.

Why the Second Visit Succeeded

Changed Circumstances and Tactics

Several factors made the second enforcement visit more effective:

Escalated fees: By Enforcement Stage 2, fees had increased to £495 plus VAT, making the total debt significantly larger and more painful to ignore.

Accumulated pressure: Five months of consistent enforcement activity—calls, visits, formal notices—created mounting stress and urgency.

Detailed property inspection: The agent conducted a more thorough examination, identifying business use that may have been present during the first visit but not detected.

Clear intention to seize: Unlike the first visit’s exploratory nature, the second visit explicitly threatened immediate asset removal.

The Psychology of Payment

The director’s behavior reveals common debtor psychology in High Court Enforcement Solutions:

Minimization: Initially claiming poverty and inability to pay despite running an active business.

Negotiation testing: Seeing how much pressure would be applied before payment became necessary.

Crisis response: Only when immediate consequences were unavoidable did funds suddenly become available.

Family resources: The director contacted his son for payment—revealing that funds were accessible through family networks all along.

Financial Breakdown: The True Cost of Delay

What the Debtor Paid

The initial judgment was £3,752.42 plus £205 in court costs—a total of £3,957.42.

By delaying payment through five months of enforcement proceedings, the director ultimately paid £5,293.49:

Original judgment: £3,752.42
Original costs: £205.00
Execution costs: £51.75
Compliance fee: £90.00 (including VAT)
First enforcement fee: £324.40 (including VAT)
Second enforcement fee: £594.00 (including VAT)

Additional cost from delay: £1,336.07 (34% more than the original judgment)

The evasion tactics cost the debtor significantly more than immediate payment would have.

What the Creditor Recovered

After enforcement costs were deducted, the claimant received £4,103.09—exceeding her original judgment by recovering additional interest and some enforcement costs.

For someone who “had no hope of ever recovering this money,” this represented complete vindication and financial recovery.

Key Lessons for Debt Recovery Success

For Creditors Pursuing Judgments

Transfer to High Court early: County Court bailiffs have limited powers. High Court Enforcement Officers can apply greater pressure and seize a wider range of assets.

Expect multiple enforcement stages: Initial visits may not succeed, but they gather intelligence for subsequent attempts.

Monitor company status: Check Companies House regularly for dissolution applications or other evasion attempts.

Object to dissolution formally: If debtors try to strike off companies with outstanding debts, file immediate objections citing the judgment.

Be patient but persistent: This case took five months from High Court transfer to payment, but achieved 100% recovery plus costs.

For Enforcement Professionals

Conduct thorough property inspections: Business use of residential premises may not be immediately obvious during brief visits.

Document everything carefully: Notes from first visits inform strategy for subsequent attempts.

Escalate systematically: Progressive fee increases and enforcement stages create mounting financial pressure.

Look for business activity indicators: Even at residential addresses, watch for equipment, signage, vehicles, or other business markers.

Time visits strategically: Different times of day may reveal different activities at mixed-use properties.

Understanding Residential vs. Commercial Enforcement

The Legal Distinction Matters

The high court enforcement process treats residential and commercial properties differently. Agents cannot seize household goods, personal belongings, or items necessary for basic domestic needs from residential properties.

However, when business assets are present at a residential address—even the director’s personal home—those business items can be taken into control. The key is distinguishing between:

Protected items: Furniture, appliances, clothing, children’s items, and household necessities

Controllable assets: Business equipment, inventory, commercial vehicles, office supplies, and items clearly used for trading

Directors who operate businesses from home often assume residential protections extend to all property on the premises. This case demonstrates that assumption is incorrect.

The Role of Progressive Enforcement Stages

How Escalation Drives Results

The debt enforcement proceedings in this case followed a systematic escalation:

Stage 1 – Compliance: Seven-day notice period with opportunity to pay before agent visits. Cost: £90 including VAT.

Stage 2 – First Enforcement: Initial property visit with authority to take control of goods. Additional cost: £324.40 including VAT.

Stage 3 – Second Enforcement: Return visit with heightened urgency and immediate seizure authority. Additional cost: £594.00 including VAT.

Each stage increased both the financial consequences and the psychological pressure. By the second enforcement visit, the debtor faced losing business assets worth potentially thousands of pounds to satisfy a debt that had ballooned to over £5,200.

This structured escalation creates decision points where paying becomes more attractive than continued resistance.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can enforcement agents seize business assets from a residential property?

Yes. While enforcement agents cannot take household goods or personal belongings from residential properties, they can seize business assets present at those addresses. If a director operates a business from their home, business equipment, inventory, and commercial items can be taken into control. The key distinction is between personal household items (protected) and business assets (subject to seizure).

What happens if a company tries to dissolve while owing a debt?

Under Section 1001 of the Companies Act 2006, applying to strike off a company while it has outstanding liabilities is a criminal offense. Creditors can file formal objections with Companies House by providing evidence of the debt and ongoing enforcement proceedings. Companies House will typically suspend the dissolution application, keeping the company active until debts are resolved.

Why do multiple enforcement visits sometimes work when the first one fails?

Multiple visits succeed for several reasons: accumulated psychological pressure over time, increased fees that make paying more attractive, more thorough property inspections that reveal previously unnoticed assets, and changed circumstances (business activity may be more visible at different times). The escalating cost of enforcement—from hundreds to over a thousand pounds—creates mounting financial pressure that eventually forces payment.

How much do enforcement costs add to the original debt?

Enforcement costs vary by stage. Compliance fees typically range from £75-£90, first enforcement visits add £230-£324, and subsequent enforcement stages can add £495-£594 or more. In this case, enforcement costs added £1,336 (34%) to the original £3,957 judgment. Debtors who pay during the compliance stage avoid these substantial additional costs.

What is a Writ of Control in the high court enforcement process?

A Writ of Control is the legal document that authorizes High Court Enforcement Officers to take control of a debtor’s goods to satisfy a judgment. It’s obtained when a County Court judgment is transferred to the High Court for enforcement. The writ gives agents broader powers than County Court bailiffs have, including authority to force entry to commercial premises and seize a wider range of assets.

Conclusion: Persistence and Strategy Win Cases

This case transformed from apparent failure—a residential property with “no assets”—into complete debt recovery within hours of the second enforcement visit. The claimant went from having “no hope” of recovery to receiving full payment plus costs.

The success factors were clear: systematic escalation through enforcement stages, persistent pressure over five months, thorough property inspections, prevention of company dissolution, and credible threat of immediate asset seizure.

For businesses holding unpaid judgments, this case demonstrates the value of transferring to High Court enforcement and maintaining pressure through multiple attempts. What appears unrecoverable after initial efforts may yield complete results with continued strategic enforcement.

If you’re facing similar challenges with unpaid County Court judgments, consider whether High Court Enforcement Solutions might achieve the results that standard collection methods cannot.