THE BOTTOM LINE
- Don’t overreach: Demanding collection fees far above the statutory B2B rates can backfire spectacularly, leading a court to award only the bare minimum.
- A costly error: By demanding nearly three times the correct amount plus a baseless “file fee,” the creditor in this case forfeited its right to over €900 in legitimate collection costs.
- Compliance is key: Companies must ensure their demand letters are accurate and legally compliant. Any deviation risks invalidating the claim for costs, even if the underlying debt is valid.
THE DETAILS
The case involved a straightforward B2B dispute. Energy supplier Eneco issued three invoices totaling approximately €18,500 to a corporate client. When the client overlooked the payment, Eneco’s legal representatives sent a demand letter. This letter not only sought the principal amount but also added nearly €2,800 in collection costs and a separate €40 “dossier fee.” The client promptly paid the principal invoice amount but contested the additional charges, leading to the court case.
The District Court of Midden-Nederland focused its analysis on the validity of the demand letter. It found that the claimed collection costs were grossly inflated. Under the statutory tariff for B2B collections, the maximum permissible fee was just under €960—almost a third of the amount demanded. Furthermore, the court found no legal basis whatsoever for the additional €40 “dossier fee.” It concluded that by demanding fees it was not entitled to, the creditor had failed to send a proper and legally compliant pre-collection notice.
The consequences of this flawed demand were severe. The court ruled that because the creditor had improperly demanded excessive and unfounded fees, it had forfeited its right to the standard statutory collection costs. Instead, the court awarded only the absolute minimum fee stipulated by law for such cases: €40. This represents a 95% reduction from the nearly €960 Eneco could have legally claimed. In contrast, the court did award the full amount of statutory commercial interest, as it was correctly calculated and legally due from the invoices’ expiry date. The ruling serves as a stark reminder that accuracy in debt collection is paramount; overreaching can wipe out otherwise legitimate claims for costs.
SOURCE
Source: Rechtbank Midden-Nederland
