§ 21. Costs when the debt collection case goes to collection through the courts
When the case moves on to collection through the courts (rettslig inndriving), the ordinary rules on debt collection costs (inkassokostnader) no longer apply on their own. The rules on legal costs (sakskostnader) in the procedural legislation apply instead. This means that costs at the Conciliation Board (forliksrådet), in court or in enforcement are assessed under separate rules.
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)
For costs of collection through the courts, the rules on legal costs in the procedural legislation apply.
What does this mean?
§ 21 is short, but important. It says that when a debt collection (inkasso) case moves on to collection through the courts, the costs are no longer governed only by the Debt Collection Act's (inkassoloven) rules on out-of-court costs. The rules on legal costs in the procedural legislation apply instead.
Collection through the courts means that the claim is collected through the court system or the enforcement authorities. This can for example be a conciliation complaint (forliksklage), a judgment, a payment order, attachment (utlegg) or other enforcement. This is a more serious step than ordinary debt collection.
Before the case gets that far, you will usually have received a debt collection notice (inkassovarsel) and a demand for payment (betalingsoppfordring). You must have been given a deadline to pay or to raise objections (innsigelser). If you do not pay, and the claim is not resolved, the case can move on.
When the case moves on through the courts, new costs may arise. These can be court fees, fees to the enforcement officer (namsmannen), legal costs and any costs for legal assistance. § 21 says that these costs are not governed by the same rules as the ordinary debt collection fee (inkassosalær). They follow the rules of the procedural legislation.
Procedural legislation means the rules for how cases are handled in the court system. For ordinary people, the point is this: When the case goes to court or to the enforcement officer, the cost picture can change. It can become more expensive than ordinary debt collection. That is why you should take legal notices seriously.
What is the difference between out-of-court collection and collection through the courts?
Out-of-court collection (utenrettslig inndriving) is debt collection before the case goes to the authorities. This means letters, demands for payment, phone calls, payment agreements (betalingsavtaler) and ordinary follow-up. Costs here are governed in particular by §§ 17 to 20.
Collection through the courts is when the case is taken further to public bodies. This can be the Conciliation Board, the district court (tingretten) or the enforcement officer. Legal measures are then used to establish or collect the claim.
A simple example: You receive a debt collection notice. That is out-of-court. You receive a demand for payment from the debt collection agency (inkassobyrå). That is also out-of-court. The case is sent to the Conciliation Board. You are now on the legal track. The case goes to the enforcement officer for attachment. That is collection through the courts.
This boundary matters a lot for costs. Before collection through the courts, the limits in the Debt Collection Act apply. After that, the procedural rules come in.
Does this mean you always have to pay legal costs?
No. § 21 says which rules apply. It does not say that you always have to pay everything.
Whether you have to pay legal costs depends on the rules for the process in question. It may matter whether the claim was correct, whether you lost the case, whether you had reasonable grounds to have the case tried, and which costs were necessary.
If you dispute (bestride) a claim with good reason, it may be wrong to simply pay everything out of fear. But you must respond properly. If you ignore legal letters, the case can move on without your objections being heard.
Many people make the mistake of treating a letter from the Conciliation Board or the enforcement officer as “just another debt collection letter”. You should not do that. When the case is a legal one, the deadlines can be more important. Failing to respond can lead to a decision against you.
Why does § 21 exist?
§ 21 clarifies the boundary between two sets of rules. The Debt Collection Act has its own rules on out-of-court collection. But court cases have their own rules. You therefore need to know which system applies.
Without § 21, it could have been unclear whether the cost limits in the Debt Collection Act should also govern court fees and legal costs. The section says that for collection through the courts, the procedural legislation applies.
This does not mean that the Debt Collection Act becomes completely irrelevant. For example, it may still matter whether the debt collector (inkassator) complied with § 11 before collection through the courts. § 11 says that the debt collector must have sent a demand for payment with notice of collection through the courts, the deadlines must have expired, and the claim must have been assessed as legitimate.
If the debt collector goes to collection through the courts too early, this can have consequences. But the costs of the court proceedings themselves are assessed under other rules.
What happens if the case goes to the enforcement officer?
If the case goes to the enforcement officer, attachment may be applied for. Attachment means that payment can be taken from wages, a bank account or assets. This does not happen just because a debt collection agency wants it. There must be a legal basis, and procedural rules must be followed.
The costs of such steps follow separate rules. Fees may be added. It can also have practical consequences for your finances.
If you receive a letter from the enforcement officer, you should read all of it carefully. Check which claim it concerns. Check the deadline. Check whether you can pay, enter into an agreement or object. Do not wait until a wage deduction (lønnstrekk) has already started.
Examples
Per owes NOK 4,500 to a mobile phone company. He receives a debt collection notice, but does not pay. He receives a demand for payment, but does not respond. After the deadline, the debt collection agency sends the case to the Conciliation Board. The case has now moved on to collection through the courts. Costs at the Conciliation Board do not just follow the rules on the ordinary debt collection fee. They are assessed under the rules on legal costs. Per should not ignore the letter from the Conciliation Board. If he thinks the claim is correct, he should pay or try to reach an agreement. If he thinks the claim is wrong, he must respond within the deadline and explain why. The outcome depends on what Per does. If he does not respond, the case can move on in a way that makes it harder and more expensive for him.
Anne receives a claim for an item she believes she returned. She has a receipt for the return. Even so, the case goes to the Conciliation Board. Anne responds within the deadline. She attaches the return receipt and explains that the claim is wrong. This is important. When the case is a legal one, she must use the channels the case requires. It is not enough just to be right. She must get the documentation into the case. If it turns out that the claim should not have been sent on, this may affect the costs. But if Anne does not respond, she risks a decision against her even if she had good arguments.
Common mistakes
- Thinking that a letter from the Conciliation Board is just an ordinary debt collection letter
- Not responding because you have already objected to the debt collection agency
- Mixing up the debt collection fee with court fees and legal costs
- Forgetting that legal deadlines can be short and important
- Paying the whole claim without distinguishing between the principal claim (hovedkrav), debt collection costs and legal costs
What should you do?
Take legal letters seriously. Check whether the letter comes from the Conciliation Board, the district court or the enforcement officer. That is something different from an ordinary debt collection letter.
Check the deadline. Write it down the same day. Consider setting a reminder on your phone.
Find documentation. Have you paid? Have you terminated the agreement? Have you returned the item? Do you have an email, a Vipps receipt or a bank statement?
Respond through the right channel. If the letter says you must respond to the Conciliation Board, writing only to the debt collection agency will not always help.
If the claim is correct, try to pay or reach an agreement before the costs increase. If the claim is wrong, dispute it clearly and attach evidence.