The Pet Vet Dispute Part Four: The Chase Continues

The Pet Vet dispute, part four: the threats, the replies and the unanswered account

Two emails from The Pet Vet, our two replies, and the substantive account response we are still waiting for.

There comes a point when chasing an invoice stops being an accounts task and starts becoming another project.

You have supplied the materials. You have paid the people who did the work. You have sent the account, answered the deductions and chased the promised reply. Then you face another decision: how much more time and money are you prepared to spend recovering the balance?

That is where we are with The Pet Vet’s Feltham flooring project.

Our position remains that £7,226.76 is outstanding. The Pet Vet disputes that further payment is due. No court has determined who is right.

This instalment records what happened next, using the correspondence itself.

What happened after the promised response

On 14 September, Terry Pearson acknowledged our response to the deductions and said a substantive response would follow.

On 22 September, he committed to providing that response within seven to ten days. On 2 October, we chased that commitment.

On 5 October, two further emails arrived. One concerned our publications and threatened legal action. The other suggested responding to our lawyers’ letter before action and having the dispute determined by a court.

Neither supplied the promised substantive response to our final-account rebuttal.

We replied to both on 6 October. At the mailbox check on 7 October, we had received no further email from The Pet Vet after those 5 October messages.

That is the precise position. There has been correspondence. What remains missing is the substantive response promised to the account rebuttal.

The first email: 5 October

The subject was “Fornal Notice”. Below is the text of the notice through the sender’s name and role, reproduced verbatim. Contact details and the standard email footer are omitted. Paragraph spacing is presented for readability; spelling and wording are retained. The “?” before 500,000 is how the retrieved text displays the currency character.

Defamatory Publications
Reputational Damage
Disputed Account

Cavendish deVere Services Ltd
(its Directors any and all associated individuals to which this email relates)
60 Tottenham Court Road
Suite 1152a
Fitzrovia
London
W1T 2EW

Dear Sirs

Without Prejudice

Re: The Pet Vet Surgery Feltham TW13 4AU

We write regarding the dispute concerning your alleged entitlement to further payment following completion of the flooring works undertaken by your company at Feltham surgery.

For the avoidance of doubt, our position remains that the final account is disputed and that no admission is made that any further sum is due to you. The contractual and financial aspects of the final account remain a separate matter and will be dealt with through the appropriate legal process. We note you have told us that you have appointed legal representation and will enter into litigation to recover sums you believe to be owed. Any action will be fully defended.

We are very concerned that you have now chosen to publish and/or cause to be published a number of posts, articles, blogs and other statements concerning our company, its business and/or the circumstances surrounding your dispute with us. We are aware of publications made through various online social media platforms including statements which are false and/or misleading and which present allegations concerning our company as fact.

We consider that these publications have the potential to cause, and are already causing, serious damage to the reputation and goodwill of our business. Our company provides veterinary care to approximately 100,000 pets across the United Kingdom. The reputation and confidence associated with our business is fundamental to our relationship with our customers, veterinary professionals, employees, suppliers and other stakeholders.

It is therefore wholly unacceptable for a commercial dispute concerning a subcontractor’s account to be pursued through public allegations against our business.

Formal demand
You are hereby required to:

Immediately cease publishing, reposting, sharing or otherwise communicating any further statements concerning our company, its employees, directors, officers or the circumstances of the disputed account which are defamatory, false, misleading or otherwise unjustified.

Within 24 hours of receipt of this email, remove all existing posts, blogs, articles, comments, reviews and other publications containing such statements from all websites, social-media platforms and other publicly accessible locations.

Take reasonable steps to procure the removal of any such material which you have caused or requested third parties to publish.

Provide written confirmation within 24 hours that the above actions have been completed.

Preserve all documents and electronic evidence relating to the publications, including drafts, correspondence, emails, messages, social-media records, analytics, engagement data and communications with any third party concerning the publications. Nothing in this email should be interpreted as requiring the destruction or alteration of any such material.

Consequences of non-compliance
If the publications are not removed within the 24-hour period, or if further publications are made, we reserve all rights to take immediate legal action without further notice.

Such action may include proceedings arising from defamatory statements and/or other causes of action available to us, together with applications for appropriate injunctive relief and recovery of damages, interest and legal costs.

Given the scale and nature of our business, the potential impact of the publications upon our goodwill and commercial reputation is significant. We currently reserve the right to seek damages in the sum of ?500,000, together with such further damages, interest and costs as may be appropriate.

If you genuinely believe that any statement you have published is accurate and capable of being substantiated, you should provide us with the precise wording of the statement, the factual basis upon which you rely and the evidence supporting it. You should not, however, regard this invitation as permission to continue publishing the material pending resolution of the matter.

Account
Nothing in this letter constitutes acceptance of your position concerning the disputed account.

The account remains subject to the contractual rights and obligations of the parties, and any outstanding financial dispute should be addressed litigation as you have advised and not through public statements or social-media campaigns.

We strongly recommend that you obtain independent legal advice immediately.

This letter is sent with all of our company’s rights expressly reserved.

On making any application we will include such action as necessary to lift the corporate veil and litigate against all individuals connected with the posts on an individual basis.

You should not underestimate our intent in this matter.

Yours faithfully

Terry Pearson
Head of Commercial Developments & Estate
The Pet Vet – Central Services Unit

The Pet Vet’s position is plainly stated: it disputes the account and alleges that publications concerning the dispute are false or misleading and damaging.

We do not accept those allegations. The notice does not identify a specific passage, explain precisely what is false about it, or provide a calculation supporting the damages figure it reserves the right to seek.

Those observations do not determine the merits of a legal claim. They explain why the notice does not answer the questions we have been asking about the final account.

Our acknowledgement: 6 October

Dear Terry,

We acknowledge receipt of your ‘Fornal Notice’ email of 5 October.

We will provide a substantive response in due course.

This acknowledgement does not constitute acceptance of your allegations or agreement to your demands. All our rights are reserved.

Your promised substantive response to our final-account rebuttal remains outstanding, despite the seven-to-ten-day timeframe you set in your email of 22 September having elapsed.

Kind regards,

Matthew Mason
For and on behalf of Cavendish deVere Services Ltd

The second email: 5 October

The subject was “RE: The Pet Vet – Feltham”. The message below is reproduced verbatim through its closing; the signature contact block and standard footer are omitted.

Dear Matthew

You have said you have appointed lawyers so maybe just best I respond the their LBA.

I’m sure you will agree that makes more sense as we are clearly see things differently so maybe the correct way is for the court arbitrate the claim.

Kind regards

“LBA” means letter before action.

This email proposed a legal route. It did not explain or substantiate the disputed deductions. We therefore replied to that point directly.

Our account response: 6 October

Dear Terry,

Your latest email does not provide the substantive response you promised. Suggesting that you wait for a solicitor’s letter is no substitute for addressing the detailed rebuttal already supplied to you.

On 14 September, you acknowledged our response to your deductions and stated that a substantive response would follow. We subsequently chased that response repeatedly and escalated the matter to your directors. On 22 September, you expressly committed to responding within seven to ten days. We chased that commitment again on 2 October.

Despite those requests and your own commitments, you have still not addressed our rebuttal or supplied supporting records substantiating the deductions you maintain.

The questions have been put to you clearly. Please identify each deduction, its contractual and factual basis, and the supporting evidence. In particular, explain your reduction of the additional-labour charge despite your written acknowledgement that you agreed the additional charges.

Our position remains that the outstanding £7,226.76 is payable. Please arrange payment or provide the substantive, evidenced response we have repeatedly requested.

The next step is straightforward: either arrange payment or explain and substantiate the deductions you maintain. Your repeated failure to do either, despite clear requests and your own commitments, has unnecessarily prolonged this dispute and made its resolution more difficult. Nothing in your latest email advances matters towards a prompt conclusion.

You are now suggesting court proceedings while leaving those requests unanswered. That sequence of correspondence, including your unfulfilled commitments, will form part of the record relied upon if proceedings become necessary.

Kind regards,

Matthew Mason
Accounts
Cavendish deVere Services Ltd

Both replies were copied to Mel Fuller and Rob Jones.

Our account request remains the same: payment of the balance we say is due, or a substantive explanation of the deductions and the evidence supporting them.

What happens next?

We are now deciding how to pursue the disputed account: instruct a solicitor to manage it, manage an online money claim ourselves, or buy limited professional advice and handle the later steps in-house.

In Part 5, we will examine the costs, the court timetable, mediation and enforcement—and what we have learned about the economics of recovering a disputed balance.