§ 25. The debt collector may have to pay the complaints board's costs for breaching good debt collection practice
If the debt collector (inkassator) breaches the requirement of good debt collection practice (god inkassoskikk), the complaints board (nemnd) can order the debt collector to pay the complaints board's costs in that specific case. This is not a fee (gebyr) that you as the debtor (skyldner) have to pay. It is a consequence for the debt collector when the case has been handled in an unacceptable way.
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)
In the event of breaches of the requirement of good debt collection practice in § 8, the complaints board may order the debt collector to pay the complaints board's costs in the case in question.
What does this mean?
§ 25 is about who may have to pay the costs of the complaints board review (nemndsbehandling). It applies when the debt collector has breached the requirement of good debt collection practice in § 8.
Good debt collection practice means that debt collection (inkasso) must be carried out in an orderly, fair and responsible way. The debt collector must not use methods that expose anyone to unreasonable pressure, harm or inconvenience. This is set out in § 8.
If the complaints board handles a case and finds that the debt collector has breached good debt collection practice, the complaints board can order the debt collector to pay the complaints board's costs (omkostninger) in the case in question. "Omkostninger" means costs.
This is an important rule because it makes breaches of good debt collection practice more concrete. If the debt collector acts unreasonably, it may not only lead to criticism in the statement. It can also have a financial consequence for the debt collector.
The rule applies to "the case in question". That means the case the complaints board has handled. The complaints board cannot use § 25 to impose costs on the debt collector for all sorts of other cases. But if the debt collector breached good debt collection practice in the case under review, the complaints board can make the debt collector liable for the complaints board's costs in that case.
For you as the debtor, § 25 means that you should not bear the complaints board's costs because the debt collector has acted contrary to good debt collection practice. The rule is aimed at the debt collector.
What is good debt collection practice?
Good debt collection practice is the basic rule of conduct in the Debt Collection Act. Debt collection business (inkassovirksomhet) must be conducted properly. This applies to large debt collection agencies (inkassobyrå), lawyers who carry out debt collection, and others who collect claims in a way covered by the Act.
A breach may be that the debt collector puts unreasonable pressure on you. It may be threatening language, misleading information or repeated contact that goes too far.
It may also be that the debt collector continues to demand money without considering a clear objection (innsigelse). If you send documentation showing that you have paid, the debt collector must not simply ignore it and keep pressing.
Good debt collection practice is also about clarity. You should understand what the claim concerns. You should receive correct information. You should be given real deadlines. You should be able to object without the case being pushed ahead as if you never replied.
Not all mistakes are automatically a breach of good debt collection practice. But serious, unreasonable or systematic mistakes can be.
Why can the debt collector have to pay the complaints board's costs?
Because handling cases costs money. If the debt collector has acted in a way that breaches good debt collection practice, it is reasonable that the debt collector can be charged the costs of the complaints board review.
This also has a preventive effect. Preventive means that the rule is meant to stop bad conduct before it happens. When debt collectors know that breaching good debt collection practice can have financial consequences, they have more reason to have good routines.
§ 25 is not primarily designed to punish in the everyday sense. It is designed to place the cost where it belongs. If the complaints board review is due to the debt collector acting contrary to the basic rule of the Act, the debt collector may have to pay.
Is this the same as you not having to pay debt collection costs?
No, it is not quite the same. § 25 is about the complaints board's costs. § 17 is about the debtor's liability for debt collection costs (inkassokostnader).
But the rules are connected. If the debt collector has breached good debt collection practice, under § 17 you may also not have to cover the costs of the collection (inndriving). This means that a breach of good debt collection practice can have several consequences.
For example: The debt collector puts pressure on you in an unreasonable way. The complaints board finds that this breaches § 8. Then, under § 25, the debt collector may have to pay the complaints board's costs. At the same time, under § 17 you may be relieved of debt collection costs that would otherwise have been charged to you.
You should therefore be clear about what you are asking for in your complaint. You can both ask the complaints board to assess whether good debt collection practice has been breached and dispute (bestride) the debt collection costs.
What happens if the complaints board uses § 25?
Then the debt collector can be ordered to pay the complaints board's costs in the case. This is a cost for the debt collector, not for you as the debtor.
The case may also be passed on to the Financial Supervisory Authority of Norway (Finanstilsynet) under § 24 if the complaints board states that the Debt Collection Act has been breached. In this way, the case can have both financial and supervisory consequences.
If the breach concerns good debt collection practice, you should also look at the debt collection costs in the claim. Under § 17 you are not obliged to cover the costs if the creditor (fordringshaver), the debt collector or others who have assisted have acted contrary to good debt collection practice towards you.
Examples
Sara receives a debt collection claim for an invoice she believes has been paid. She sends the receipt to the debt collection agency three times. Even so, she receives new letters with increasingly harsh wording. One letter states that the case "will be passed on regardless" if she does not pay everything, even though the receipt shows that the principal claim (hovedkrav) was paid before the debt collection fee (inkassosalær) was incurred. Sara complains to the complaints board. The complaints board reviews the case and finds that the debt collector has breached good debt collection practice. They should have stopped and examined the documentation, not kept up the pressure as if Sara had not replied. Under § 25, the complaints board can order the debt collector to pay the complaints board's costs in the case. For Sara, this means that the debt collector's poor handling has a concrete consequence.
Petter disputes a claim because he never received the item. He sends an email with the order number and tracking information. The debt collection agency does not respond to the objection, but sends a demand for payment (betalingsoppfordring) threatening collection through the courts (rettslig inndriving). Petter complains to the complaints board. If the complaints board finds that the debt collection agency did not consider his objection in a responsible way, this may be a breach of good debt collection practice. Then § 25 may become relevant. The complaints board can order the debt collector to pay the complaints board's costs in the case. In addition, Petter can dispute the debt collection costs under § 17.
Common mistakes
- Thinking that good debt collection practice is only about polite language
- Not documenting unreasonable pressure or a lack of response
- Thinking that § 25 means the debtor receives compensation (erstatning) directly
- Forgetting to demand that debt collection costs be removed when good debt collection practice has been breached
- Complaining too vaguely without explaining which actions were unreasonable
What should you do?
If you believe the debt collector has breached good debt collection practice, you should gather evidence. Keep letters, emails, text messages, call logs and payment receipts.
Make a short timeline. Write down the date of the first claim, the date of your objection, the date you sent documentation, and the dates of any new claims after that.
Be specific in your complaint. Write what the debt collector did wrong. For example: "The debt collector continued to demand payment after I documented that the claim had been paid." Or: "The debt collector threatened legal action without considering my objection."
Ask the complaints board to assess whether this is a breach of good debt collection practice. Also ask for debt collection costs to be removed if they have been charged to you.