§ 12. Exceptions to the duty to give notice — when can debt collection skip the usual rules?

Normally, the duty to give notice and the payment deadlines (betalingsfrister) in §§ 9 to 11 always apply. There are three exceptions: claims linked to bills of exchange and cheques, cases where you are clearly trying to evade payment, and disputed claims where the validity of the claim itself is brought before the courts. In practice, these exceptions do not affect most consumers (forbrukere).

The Debt Collection Act (Inkassoloven)·LOV-1988-05-13-26

Machine-translated from Norwegian. The Norwegian text is the one that applies. Read the original in Norwegian.Norsk English العربية Polski Українська

The text of the law (unofficial translation)

The provisions of §§ 9 to 11 do not apply to the collection (inndriving) of monetary claims (pengekrav) linked to a bill of exchange or a cheque.

If it is clear that the debtor (skyldneren) is seeking to evade payment, or if other special circumstances exist, the provisions of §§ 9 to 11 may be departed from to the extent that there is a risk that the possibilities of recovery would otherwise be wholly or partly lost.

If a monetary claim is disputed (bestrides), the question of whether the claim is valid may be brought for a judicial decision without the provisions of §§ 9 to 11 having first been followed.

Source: Lovdata — Inkassoloven (the Debt Collection Act) § 12

What does this mean?

§ 12 is the list of exceptions. It says when the usual rules on notice and deadlines do not apply. There are three cases, and it is important to understand them — especially to tell the difference between what is lawful and what is an attempt to get around the rules.

Exception 1: Bills of exchange and cheques. A bill of exchange is an old-fashioned payment instrument where the obligation to pay is "built into" the document itself. Most people know what a cheque is. The rule is that these instruments are meant for immediate payment — so it makes no sense to require 14+14 day deadlines. You already signed that you owe the money when you issued the bill of exchange or the cheque. This exception is of little relevance to most private individuals today.

Exception 2: Obvious evasion of payment. If it becomes clear that you are deliberately evading payment — for example, that you are about to move assets out of the country, empty bank accounts to avoid attachment (utlegg), or that there are obvious signs that you are running off — the debt collection company can ask the enforcement officer (namsmannen) to act quickly without going through the usual steps. But the bar is high. "Clear" means that suspicion, or the fact that you do not reply to letters, is not enough. It requires concrete, documented signs of active evasion of payment.

Exception 3: Disputed claims. If you dispute a claim, it can be brought before the court directly — without Debt Collection Act §§ 9 to 11 having been followed. This sounds like a dangerous exception, but it is not: this is about both parties agreeing that the question of whether the claim itself is valid should be brought before the court. It is not the same as the debt collection company being able to skip the notice rules and go to court just because you have objections (innsigelser). An objection from you is not the same as the claim having been brought for a judicial decision.

What is not a valid exception?

Here it is important to know about misuse of § 12:

Not replying to letters is not evasion of payment. Many debt collection companies try to say that because you have not replied, "it is clear that you are evading payment". That does not hold. A lack of response is not active evasion.

Disagreeing with the claim is not a reason to skip the notice steps. In fact, it is the opposite — objections are a right you have under § 10, and they must have been considered by the debt collection company before it moves on.

The claim being old is not a reason to skip anything. That is where the six-month rule in § 11 comes in instead.

Example

Per owns a small business. At one point he lent money to a supplier, and the transaction was formalised through a bill of exchange. The supplier did not pay it back, and Per sent the case to a debt collection agency (inkassobyrå). Because it is a bill of exchange, the debt collection agency can go straight to the enforcement officer without a debt collection notice (inkassovarsel) or a demand for payment (betalingsoppfordring). The exception in § 12 first paragraph applies. Eva is a private individual. She received a debt collection case for a bill she believed was wrong. The debt collection company argued that since Eva "is obviously trying to evade payment" (reason given: she did not reply to letters), the exception in § 12 second paragraph applied. Eva complained to the Debt Collection Complaints Board (Inkassoklagenemnda). The complaints board (nemnd) ruled that not replying to letters is not evasion of payment — the exception did not apply, and the debt collection company had breached §§ 9 and 10.

Common mistakes

  1. Believing that just because you have objections, the debt collection company can skip the notice steps
  2. Not knowing that "you do not reply" is not the same as evasion of payment
  3. Accepting the debt collection company's claim that § 12 second paragraph applies when there are no real signs of evasion
  4. Not complaining to the Debt Collection Complaints Board when you believe an exception has been used wrongly

What should you do?

Is the debt collection company claiming that it can skip the notice rules under § 12? Ask them to explain in writing which of the three exception situations they believe applies. Such a request puts them in a position where they must document their reasoning.

If you disagree with the reasoning, complain to the Debt Collection Complaints Board and/or the Financial Supervisory Authority of Norway (Finanstilsynet). Invalid use of § 12 is a breach of §§ 9, 10 and 11 and can mean that the debt collection fee (inkassosalær) is lost.

Frequently asked questions

Can the debt collection company use § 12 because it is in a hurry to collect the claim?
No. The debt collection company being in a hurry is not a valid exception. There must be concrete, documentable signs that you are actively evading payment and that the possibilities of recovery will be lost.
What does it mean that "the possibilities of recovery will be lost"?
It means that the money or assets that could be used to cover the debt will disappear or become unavailable if one waits. For example, that you are about to sell real estate, empty an account or move abroad permanently.
Can I myself demand that the case goes directly to court without the debt collection steps?
Under the third paragraph, you can bring the question of whether the claim is valid directly before the court if it is disputed. But it is not necessarily in your interest — court proceedings cost money and take time. The Debt Collection Complaints Board is a better and free alternative in most cases.
Related sections
All §§ in the Debt Collection Act →
Questions about this section
Tools for this