§ 19. Regulation (forskrift) on fixed amounts for payment reminders and in-house collection (egeninkasso)
§ 19 does not itself say exactly how many kroner you must pay. It gives the authorities the right to set amounts in a regulation. Such amounts can apply to a payment reminder (purring), a debt collection notice (inkassovarsel) and a demand for payment (betalingsoppfordring) when the creditor (fordringshaver) collects the claim itself.
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 King in Council (Kongen) may by regulation lay down amounts that creditors may claim from a debtor (skyldner) who is liable for compensation a. when, after the due date (forfall) of the claim, a written payment reminder has been sent, or a debt collection notice under § 9, and b. when the creditor itself has sent a demand for payment that meets the requirements of § 10.
The King in Council may issue a regulation on higher amounts that a creditor may claim from a debtor who is liable for compensation, as compensation (erstatning) for costs of collecting the claim itself, when a lawyer who has provided security under the Lawyers Act (advokatloven) § 5 has the professional management of the collection (inndriving).
The amounts laid down under the first and second paragraphs may vary according to the size of the monetary claims (pengekrav).
Subject to the limitations that follow from § 20, a creditor that has had greater costs in collecting the claim itself may claim compensation for these instead of amounts laid down pursuant to the first and second paragraphs.
What does this mean?
§ 19 is about fixed amounts for the costs of collecting a claim. It does not state the amounts directly. Instead, it says that the King in Council can set amounts in a regulation. “The King in Council” here means the authorities. In practice, these are rules set by the state; it does not mean that the King personally decides each fee (gebyr).
The section applies to debtors who are “liable for compensation”. This means that you can only be charged such costs if you are actually responsible for the collection costs under the Debt Collection Act. Here, § 19 must be read together with § 17. § 17 says when you must pay costs. § 19 says that fixed amounts can be set for some of these costs.
This is practical. Without fixed amounts, people would have to argue in every case about how much a payment reminder cost. Was it NOK 12? NOK 38? NOK 95? How much time did the company spend? What did the system cost? Fixed rates make the rules simpler.
At the same time, fixed amounts protect you as a debtor. The party demanding money cannot simply write that “our internal work cost NOK 900” for a simple payment reminder. If the regulation sets an amount, that is the limit they must stay within, unless the law allows something else.
§ 19 applies in particular to two situations. The first is when, after the due date, a written payment reminder or a debt collection notice under § 9 has been sent. The second is when the creditor itself has sent a demand for payment that meets the requirements of § 10.
What is the difference between a payment reminder, a debt collection notice and a demand for payment?
A payment reminder is a reminder that you have not paid. It comes after the due date. In practice it says: “You forgot to pay. Pay now.”
A debt collection notice is more serious. It is a written notice that the case may go to debt collection (inkasso) if you do not pay. Under § 9, it must be sent after the due date, and you must get a payment deadline (betalingsfrist) of at least 14 days.
A demand for payment is the next level. It is used when the claim has been received for debt collection, or when the creditor itself sends a demand that meets the requirements of § 10. It must give you clear information about the claim, the amounts, interest, possible consequences and a deadline to pay or raise objections (innsigelser).
§ 19 makes it possible to set fixed amounts for such steps. This does not mean that every step can always be added in every case. The rules must have been followed. The claim must be overdue. The notices must be correct. And you must be liable under § 17.
What does in-house collection mean?
In-house collection means that the creditor collects the claim itself, without using an external debt collection agency (inkassobyrå).
Imagine that a gym, a housing cooperative or an online shop follows up unpaid bills itself. They send a payment reminder. They send a debt collection notice. Perhaps they send a demand for payment. They then spend time and systems on getting the money in.
§ 19 allows them to claim fixed amounts for this, if the conditions are met. That is why the section says “when the creditor itself has sent a demand for payment”.
But in-house collection does not mean that the creditor can do as it pleases. If it sends a demand for payment, the demand must meet the requirements of § 10. Among other things, it must explain who the creditor is, what the claim concerns, the size of the claim, interest and the consequences of not paying.
If the demand for payment is deficient, this may affect whether the costs can be claimed.
Why can the amounts vary according to the size of the claim?
Because small and large claims should not always be treated the same. A claim of NOK 300 and a claim of NOK 300,000 can involve different risk, different follow-up and different practical significance.
§ 19 therefore says that the amounts can vary according to the size of the monetary claim. This means the regulation can create tiers. The larger the claim, the higher the amount that may, in some cases, be claimed.
This does not mean that everything automatically becomes more expensive just because the principal claim (hovedkrav) is larger. It only means that the regulation can differentiate. The point is to give the authorities flexibility to set more accurate rates.
What if the creditor has had greater costs?
The last paragraph says that in some cases the creditor can claim compensation for greater costs instead of the fixed amounts. But this applies subject to the limitations in § 20.
This means that fixed amounts are not always the only option. If the creditor has actually had greater necessary costs in collecting the claim itself, it can in some cases claim these instead.
But the threshold is not open-ended. The costs must be real. They must be necessary. They must be documentable. And they must stay within the maximum limits that follow from § 20.
This is important for you as a debtor. If someone claims a high amount and says that “we spent a lot of time”, you can ask for an explanation. Which costs? Why were they necessary? Which rule gives them the right to claim this from you?
What happens if the amount is wrong?
If the amount is wrong, you can dispute (bestride) it. You do not need to dispute the whole claim if the principal claim is correct. You can write that you are paying the principal claim but disputing the fee or the cost.
Ask for the basis. Ask which regulation rate they are relying on. Also ask which step in the process the fee relates to: payment reminder, debt collection notice or demand for payment.
If they claim more than the fixed amounts, ask for documentation of the actual costs. Also ask for an explanation of why the costs were necessary, and how the claim stays within § 20.
22
Examples
Ola gets a bill from a gym for NOK 799. He forgets to pay. After the due date, the gym sends a written debt collection notice with a payment deadline of at least 14 days. The gym collects the claim itself. It does not use a debt collection agency. It may nevertheless be entitled to claim a fixed amount for the notice, if the regulation allows it and the conditions are met. If Ola pays within the deadline, the matter stops there. If he does not pay, the gym can proceed with a demand for payment, but it must meet the requirements of § 10 if the gym is to claim costs under the rules. The outcome is that Ola should not only look at the principal amount. He should also check whether the notice was correct, and whether any fees follow the system of the law.
Mette gets a claim from an online shop for an item she believes she never received. The online shop sends a payment reminder and adds a fee. Mette writes back that the item has not been delivered and asks for tracking information. If Mette has a reasonable objection, it must be considered. In that case, it is not certain that the online shop can charge her for the collection costs. § 19 does not help the creditor if § 17 says that the debtor is not liable for the costs. This is an important point. § 19 is about amounts. It does not alone decide whether you must pay. First you must ask: Are you liable for the costs under § 17? If the answer is no, it does not help that there are rates in a regulation.
Common mistakes
- Thinking that § 19 itself states the exact fee amount
- Forgetting to check whether you are liable for the costs under § 17
- Thinking that in-house collection means the creditor can freely make up its own fees
- Not checking whether the demand for payment meets the requirements of § 10
- Accepting large “internal costs” without documentation
What should you do?
Start by finding out what the fee relates to. Is it a payment reminder? A debt collection notice? A demand for payment? Or something else?
Check the dates. The claim must be overdue before a payment reminder or debt collection notice can give grounds for such costs.
Check the deadline. A debt collection notice under § 9 must give at least 14 days.
Check the content. A demand for payment under § 10 must contain specific information.
Check whether you had an objection. If the claim was doubtful, § 17 may mean that you do not have to pay the costs.
Write briefly and clearly if you object. “I dispute the fee. State the legal basis and the calculation.”