Is it possible to collect debts through the courts in a socially responsible way?

Judicial debt collection is often associated with pressure, asset seizure, and legal proceedings. At the same time, the landscape has changed in recent years. Legislation, oversight, and societal developments are placing increasing emphasis on due diligence, transparency, proportionality, and treating people with payment difficulties with respect.

The question is therefore relevant: can judicial debt collection be carried out in a socially responsible manner? The short answer is: yes. Legal options and a people-centered approach do not have to be mutually exclusive.

It is important to distinguish between out-of-court debt collection and the formal judicial process. When a case reaches the judicial phase, formal official acts—such as serving a summons, serving a judgment, and seizing assets—are carried out by a licensed bailiff. A debt collection service provider can handle the out-of-court process and, where necessary, transfer a case or oversee the transfer.

What is judicial debt collection?

Judicial debt collection occurs when payment of an outstanding debt is sought through legal proceedings. This typically happens when an out-of-court debt collection process has not led to a resolution.

A judicial process generally consists of:

1. the issuance and service of a summons by a bailiff;
2. hearing of the claim by the court;
3. a court ruling;
4. if voluntary payment is not made: enforcement of the judgment by a bailiff.

The certified copy of a judgment may constitute an enforceable title pursuant to Article 430 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Before enforcement can proceed, the title must be served on the party against whom enforcement is sought.

The Legal Framework for Debt Collection

A diligent approach to debt collection begins with strict compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

1. Code of Civil Procedure (Rv)

The Code of Civil Procedure contains the most important rules governing civil proceedings, enforcement, and attachment.

These include, among other things:

• the requirements for a summons, including Article 111 of the Rv;
• enforceable titles and enforcement, including Article 430 of the Rv;
• rules regarding enforcement attachments;
• the exemption threshold for attachments of certain periodic income;
• the exempt amount in the case of bank account attachment.

2. Extrajudicial collection costs

Article 6:96 of the Civil Code and the Decree on Compensation for Extrajudicial Collection Costs are relevant to extrajudicial collection costs.

Collection costs cannot simply be charged to a consumer. After the consumer has defaulted, they must first be given the opportunity, in the manner prescribed by law, to pay the amount owed without incurring collection costs. This is done via the so-called “fourteen-day notice” under Article 6:96(6) of the Dutch Civil Code. The period must actually allow the consumer at least fourteen days after receiving the demand letter.

The maximum reimbursement for extrajudicial collection costs is standardized in the Decree on Reimbursement for Extrajudicial Collection Costs.

3. Debt Collection Services Quality Act (Wki)

The Debt Collection Services Quality Act (Wki) has been in effect since April 1, 2024. Among other things, the Act sets requirements for registration, professional competence, communication, case file organization, and the manner in which out-of-court debt collection activities are carried out.

Debt collection service providers subject to the registration requirement must be registered in the Debt Collection Services Register. Bailiffs and attorneys are exempt from this registration requirement due to their own regulated professional frameworks.

Furthermore, Article 18 of the Wki will take effect on October 1, 2026. This provision establishes civil law consequences for conducting out-of-court debt collection activities without the required registration or with a suspended registration. As a result, in certain cases, debt collection fees may not be due.

4. Exemption Threshold and Exempt Amount

When attaching certain periodic income, such as wages, benefits, or a pension, the exemption threshold must be taken into account. The purpose of this is to prevent a person from being left with insufficient funds to cover necessary living expenses as a result of the attachment.

Since the introduction of the Act on the Simplification of the Exemption Threshold, the rules have been heavily automated and standardized. The bailiff—or, in cases of overlapping proceedings, the coordinating bailiff—determines the exemption threshold based on statutory rules and available source data.

A different set of rules applies to the attachment of a bank account. For natural persons, a seizure-exempt amount applies under certain conditions pursuant to Article 475a of the Code of Civil Procedure. This must be distinguished from the seizure-exempt threshold for periodic income.

5. Oversight of Debt Collection and Judicial Officers

Supervision has also been strengthened in recent years.

The Inspectorate of Justice and Security supervises debt collection service providers that fall under the Debt Collection Act (Wki). The Inspectorate takes active enforcement action in the event of violations.

Bailiffs are supervised by the Financial Supervision Bureau (BFT). In addition, they are subject to disciplinary proceedings by the Chamber of Bailiffs. As a professional organization, the Royal Professional Association of Judicial Officers (KBvG) also plays an important role in setting professional and quality standards.

Together, these frameworks form an important basis for careful and responsible debt collection.

What is meant by “social debt collection”?

Social debt collection does not mean that debts are automatically forgiven or that a creditor may no longer demand payment.

It refers to a method of debt collection that emphasizes, among other things:

• clear and understandable communication;
• preventing unnecessary costs;
• realistic payment arrangements;
• timely identification of problematic debts;
• respectful treatment of the debtor;
• preventing measures that unnecessarily worsen the financial situation.

The Municipal Debt Assistance Act (Wgs) also aligns with the importance of early intervention in cases of payment difficulties. Under the statutory early warning system, payment arrears for rent, drinking water, energy, heating, and health insurance, among other things, may trigger a notification to the municipality once the applicable conditions have been met.

Judicial debt collection and a social approach: contradiction or combination?

At first glance, judicial debt collection and social debt collection may seem contradictory. After all, judicial proceedings are aimed at legally enforcing a claim, while social debt collection emphasizes finding a workable solution.

Nevertheless, both approaches can coexist.

Proportionality in Enforcement Measures

A creditor who holds an enforceable judgment is, in principle, entitled to enforce it. However, this does not mean that every enforcement measure is appropriate under all circumstances.

Article 3:13 of the Dutch Civil Code stipulates that a power may not be abused. In assessing this, factors such as the balance between the creditor’s interest and the consequences for the debtor may play a role. The law governing attachment and enforcement also contains specific rules to prevent unnecessary or pointless accumulation of costs.

A prudent approach may therefore involve considering:

• the expected proceeds from a measure;
• the costs incurred by the measure;
• less intrusive alternatives;
• the financial and personal circumstances, to the extent that they are relevant and known;
• the possibility of a feasible payment plan.

Garnishment and Social Debt Collection

Garnishment is a drastic measure. Precisely for this reason, the law provides various safeguards.

Wage and Benefit Garnishment

When certain periodic income is subject to garnishment, the exempt portion applies. This ensures that a portion of the income remains exempt from garnishment.

The calculation of this amount is regulated by law and must be determined periodically and adjusted as necessary. The aim is to better protect the minimum subsistence level.

Bank Account Garnishment

Even when attaching a natural person’s bank account, the entire balance cannot simply be seized.

Article 475a of the Code of Civil Procedure establishes the exempt amount for this purpose. The system differs from the exemption threshold for wages or benefits, but also aims to ensure that a debtor retains sufficient funds for basic living expenses.

Why a Social Approach Can Also Be Financially Sensible

Maximum pressure does not automatically lead to maximum payment.

When a payment plan is structurally unfeasible, there is a risk that payment problems will escalate further. Moreover, additional costs can reduce the ability to repay the original debt.

In cases of problematic debt, for example, a municipal debt counseling program or the Debt Restructuring for Natural Persons Act (Wsnp) may ultimately be considered.

As of July 1, 2023, a Wsnp process generally lasts 18 months. Depending on the circumstances, the judge may set a different timeframe. Upon successful completion, a fresh start may follow. For creditors, this may mean that, in the end, they will receive only a portion of the original claim.

A timely, realistic payment solution can therefore be rational not only from a social perspective but also from a financial one.

Digitization and Social Debt Collection

Digitization can contribute to a more meticulous debt collection process. Consider, for example:

• better and faster information sharing;
• digital payment options;
• online access to outstanding balances and payment arrangements;
• timely identification of payment arrears;
• support for accurate calculations and record-keeping.

Care must always be exercised when using personal data and other data. Debt collection services are provided within the framework of, among other things, the GDPR and the Wki. This means that data cannot be collected or used without restriction, and that transparency and necessity remain key principles.

Digitization can therefore support social debt collection, but it is no substitute for a careful individual assessment.

Social Developments

Attention to problematic debts and the prevention of unnecessary escalation has continued to grow in recent years.

Legislation regarding the exempt portion of income, early detection, and the quality of debt collection services demonstrates that the focus is not only on the right to payment but also on how that right is exercised.

The legal options remain available. The manner in which they are applied requires care and a tailored approach.

Practical Principles for Socially Oriented Judicial Debt Collection

A socially responsible approach may include, among other things:

1. clear communication regarding the claim, costs, and next steps;
2. feasible payment arrangements where possible;
3. correct application of the exemption threshold and the exempt amount;
4. careful consideration before resorting to drastic enforcement measures;
5. avoiding measures whose costs and negative consequences are disproportionate to the expected outcome;
6. timely referral to or collaboration with debt counseling services when problematic debts become apparent.

Social debt collection therefore does not mean less enforcement, but rather more careful enforcement.

Conclusion: Can judicial debt collection be social?

Yes. Judicial debt collection and a social approach are not mutually exclusive.

The law provides creditors with options to enforce payment, but at the same time sets limits on how collection and enforcement are carried out. Examples include the exempt portion of income, the exempt amount, the rules regarding collection costs, the Act on the Quality of Debt Collection Services, and the oversight of bailiffs and debt collection service providers.

A socially responsible approach within the debt collection process can:

• help protect the minimum subsistence level;
• prevent unnecessary costs;
• increase the likelihood of sustainable payment;
• limit the escalation of debt;
• ensure a more transparent and careful process.

Developments in debt collection are thus increasingly moving toward legally sound, transparent, and proportionate enforcement.

When legal proceedings or enforcement are necessary, the formal legal and administrative steps are carried out by qualified professionals, such as a bailiff and—where the proceedings require it—an attorney.

Sources

• Code of Civil Procedure
• Civil Code, Book 3 and Book 6
• Debt Collection Services Quality Act
• Decree on the Quality of Debt Collection Services
• Regulations on the Quality of Debt Collection Services
• Decree on Compensation for Extrajudicial Collection Costs
• Act on the Simplification of the Exemption Threshold, Stb. 2017, 110
• Bailiffs Act
• Municipal Debt Assistance Act
• Municipal Debt Assistance Decree
• Bankruptcy Act, Wsnp Regulations
• Financial Supervision Agency
• Inspectorate of Justice and Security
• Judiciary
• Federal Government