Collection agency (Germany)

A debt collection company (also known as a debt collection agency ) is a service company that primarily offers debt collection services. In addition, the purchase of accounts receivable is also offered.

General

As collection is called the entry of due receivables . All receivables from suppliers , telecommunications companies , insurers and other service companies that have debtors - i.e. customer receivables ( supplier credits ) - usually collect them themselves by the due date. Monitoring incoming payments as part of accounts receivable management is particularly labor- intensive , especially in the case of customers with poor creditworthiness or even insolvent , so that companies can use the services of debt collection companies. The main focus of the activity of debt collection companies is the pre-judicial collection of claims after the unsuccessful course of the commercial dunning procedure by the creditor.

history

→ Main article : History of debt collection companies in Germany

In 1956, the debt collection companies were still considered "a little-known child of the division of labor in banking ". In the same year the Federal Association of German Debt Collection Companies was founded . The legal basis for debt collection companies was initially the Legal Advice Act (RBerG) of December 1935, which, however, was designed for legal advisory professions .

In two decisions from 2002 and 2004, the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) specified the scope of activities of debt collection companies on the basis of the RBerG. According to this, out-of-court debt collection always includes a comprehensive legal debts check according to the Legal Advice Act and is permitted for the debt collection company. In July 2008, the Legal Services Act (RDG) came into force in place of the RBerG , which also expressly provides for collection services.

Legal issues

The legal services law (RDG) is an essential legal basis for debt collection companies. The legal norms of the RDG correspond in structure and wording to the norms that are known from the field of trade inspection and economic administration law .

General

According to Section 2, Paragraph 2 of the RDG, debt collection companies operate the collection ( collection ) of third-party claims or claims assigned for the purpose of collecting third-party accounts , if the collection of claims is operated as an independent business . The commencement of the commercial operation of a debt collection company is notifiable according to § 14 GewO , is also subject to a special authorization requirement as a commercial provision of extrajudicial legal services according to § 3 RDG in connection with § 10 para. 1 No. 1 RDG in the form of a registration in the legal services register .

Application requirements

According to Section 10 (1) of the RDG, applicants must provide evidence of special expertise which, in accordance with Section 11 (1) of the RDG, is relevant in the areas of law relevant to the requested collection activity , in particular civil law , commercial , securities and corporate law , civil procedure law including foreclosure and insolvency law as well as the law on costs must exist. Furthermore, according to § 12 Abs. 1 RDG, the personal suitability and reliability must be proven.

Request

The application for registration is to be sent to the “competent authority” in accordance with Section 13 (1) RDG. The supervision of debt collection companies is not incumbent on the otherwise responsible supervisory authorities , but depending on the federal state, the court presidents of the local , regional or higher regional courts . Instead, as usual, collection agencies are therefore not subject to the supervision of the executive but of the judiciary . Permission is only granted after approval of the application for entry in the legal services register. The presidents of the local courts are also responsible here. The entry in the legal services register according to § 16 RDG has constitutive legal effect , so that the debt collection company may only participate in business transactions after entry in the legal services register. Conversely, a deletion by revoking the registration ( § 14 RDG), for example if well-founded facts justify the acceptance of permanently unqualified legal services to the detriment of the person seeking the right or legal transactions (§ 14 No. 3 RDG), leads to the termination of business activity.

Legal basis

The core business for debt collection companies is the collection of receivables. The legal basis is a collection contract between the collection company and the creditor . The collection agreement is an agency agreement to § 675 BGB , in which contract law ( § 662 BGB) and service contract law ( § 611 apply BGB). The collection company asserts the claim against the debtor either on the basis of a power of attorney to collect ( § 2 Paragraph 2 Alt. 1 RDG) or an assignment by way of security ( § 2 Paragraph 2 Alt. 2 RDG). In the case of the collection authority, the creditor retains his legal status as a creditor, because he only gives the collection company a power of attorney . The assignment of security is only permitted after the occurrence of the security event and is therefore essentially in the own interest of the assignee. In the case of debt collection, the formal claim ownership is transferred to the debt collection company, but the collection continues to be at the risk and account of the assignor and remains economically alien to the debt collection company. Another alternative not mentioned in the RDG is factoring , in which the risk of default is borne by the debt collection company. The legal basis for this is § 453 i. V. m. § 433 BGB.

These legal transactions allow the debt collection company to assert a claim against the debtor initially by means of an extrajudicial reminder , but if necessary also within the framework of the judicial dunning procedure . The lawsuit itself must be brought by a lawyer .

Services

Main services

Debt collection services

If the collection of third-party claims is operated as an independent business, it is always a legal service . It is irrelevant whether the claim is collected in someone else's name or in one's own name (Section 2 (2) sentence 1 RDG). The agency agreement is based either on an authorization ( Section 167 BGB) or on an assignment of the claim ( Section 194 (1) BGB). In the second variant, the debt collection company (assignee) transfers the proceeds to the previous creditor ( assignor) .

The collection services offered include the collection of debts from the due date ( Section 3 RDG), dunning (Section 3 RDG), the implementation of judicial dunning proceedings ( Section 79 (2) No. 4 ZPO ) and the recovery of titled claims (Section 79 (2) No. 4 ZPO). The main task of debt collection service providers is to collect claims that have been commercially warned but not yet asserted in court.

In the case of authorizations, the power of representation of debt collection companies ends ,

• if there has been a submission to the court of dispute in the dunning procedure and
• if, in the context of foreclosures, actions would lead to the initiation of controversial proceedings or if actions are necessary in contentious proceedings (Section 79 (2) No. 4 ZPO).

Collection companies are in competition with lawyers , who are always entitled to provide legal services ( § 3 BRAO ), as well as with the company's own dunning departments.

Debt purchase

The individual complete acquisition of receivables, under the explicit exclusion of framework conditions that go beyond the respective purchase, for personal collection is not regulated. This also includes maturity factoring , if the financing function is completely eliminated, as well as the purchase of loan portfolios , especially non-performing loans . The purchase of receivables is essentially based on the regulations of the purchase contract (§§ 453 in conjunction with 433 BGB).

Fringe benefits

Factoring

→ Main article : factoring

Occasionally, debt collection companies also offer factoring, in which receivables are continuously acquired on the basis of framework agreements . This is usually a financial service ( section 1 (1a) sentence 2 no. 9 KWG ). Factoring therefore requires a banking license from BaFin ( section 32 (1) sentence 1 half-sentence 1 KWG). In this case, the borrower is the debtor of the liabilities ( Section 19 (5) Var. 2 KWG). However, this form of real factoring is not a legal service.

If the factor (buyer of the receivables) does not take on the full economic risk of collecting the receivable ("fake" factoring ) from his customer (previous creditor), there is also a collection service that requires registration. In this case, the borrower is the seller of the receivables (Section 19 Para. 5 Var. 1 KWG).

Factoring is essentially based on the provisions of the sales contract (§§ 453 in conjunction with 433 BGB), fake factoring is also classified as a loan ( § 488 BGB).

Others

Additional services include, above all, auxiliary commercial activities in the area of preparing offers and invoices as well as the long-term monitoring of currently unrecoverable claims.

Additional information

Numbers and dates

As of January 1, 2017, there were 2081 registrations for collection services. ^{(a) However,} there are no (official) statistics for the industry (and in contrast to the market in the UK or the USA), which is why some of the following information is based on information from the BDIU. According to this, around 750 debt collection service providers are said to have entered the market in 2011, holding a volume of receivables of almost 27 billion euros and collecting five billion euros from it annually. These are predominantly micro and small businesses that operate regionally . It is assumed that over two thirds of all service providers have a maximum of five employees. At that time, 560 service providers were members of the BDIU, which accordingly represented around 90 percent of the volume of claims.

The following parts of this section seem since February 2017 is out of date to be : new study
Please help with to the missing information research and insert .

According to a comprehensive industry study on the debt collection market in Germany, which the BDIU commissioned in 2012, the debt collection companies hold more than 50 billion euros in receivables. The average amount of claims that companies collect for their clients is well over 600 euros. Recovery employed around 15,000 people at the time of the study. At this point in time, the debt collection companies affiliated with the BDIU had processed over 15 million cases in out-of-court debt collection. The companies deal with around 80 percent, i.e. a good twelve million, of these cases without going to court.

^(a) Query from the legal services register

Industry associations

BDR

The Federal Association of German Legal Advisers / Legal Service Providers e. V. (BDR) was founded around 1880 as an association of the Rhine-Westphalian legal consultants . In addition to the debt collectors, the representation of interests also extends to legal advisers , legal advisers with full or partial authorization, legal experts in foreign law, pension advisors and insurance advisors .

BDIU

→ Main article : BDIU

The Federal Association of German Debt Collection Companies e. V. (BDIU) was founded in 1956 and has exclusively represented the interests of the majority of debt collection companies since 1966 .

BFIF

The Federal Association for Collection and Receivables Management e. V. (BFIF) was founded in 2010 as a pure industry association for debt collection companies.

In addition to other courses, the association offers the possibility of acquiring theoretical knowledge for registration as a debt collection service provider in accordance with Section 2 (1) sentence 1 i. V. m. § 4 RDV , the mediation of the necessary specialist knowledge for the appointment to the data protection officer according to § 4f paragraph 2, 3 BDSG and the advanced training for IT specialist lawyers according to § 15 FAO .

Debt collection companies can be certified by the BFIF in terms of quality, security and performance . As a further service, there is the possibility of appointing an external data protection officer via the BFIF.

In the event of disputes with member companies relating to the processing of transactions that fall under the definition of collection service, the association offers a simple review / arbitration procedure with regard to compliance with legal requirements on the part of the debt collection company.

FENCA

The Federation of European National Collection Associations (FENCA) was founded in 1992 as the European umbrella organization for the respective national associations. The 23 member associations represent 75% of all European debt collection companies and 80% of the market share.

Legal Services Register

→ Main article : Legal services register

Collection agencies must be registered in the legal services register (§ § 16 in conjunction with 10 para. 1 no. 1 RDG).

Client

This section needs to be revised. Details should be given on the talk page. Please help to improve it , and then remove this flag.

In particular, industries with mass turnover of goods or service providers with a large number of customers such as mail order, telecommunications, energy supply, banks or insurance companies commission debt collection companies. In addition, collection companies are also commissioned by smaller companies as well as by craft businesses and private individuals. From an economic point of view, debt collection via the debt collection industry has important functions:

• the clients are relieved of time-consuming and cost-intensive activities that are not part of their core competencies,
• Bad bad debts that are too large endanger price stability, with corresponding losses ultimately having to be borne by the paying customers,
• Too great bad debt losses can ultimately also take on dimensions that threaten the existence of the creditor.

image

This section needs to be revised. Details should be given on the talk page. Please help to improve it , and then remove this flag.

In general, the debt collection industry does not enjoy a particularly good reputation among the general public. Sometimes she is accused of generating her profits in already financially weak milieus. It is also criticized that even the smallest amounts are sometimes collected through debt collection companies and that the costs claimed for this can sometimes reach a multiple of the amount in arrears. Debt collection companies struggle with the prevalence of prejudice about them and the way they work. This is reinforced by isolated representations in the media that focus on individual dubious incidents within the collection area or that depict completely atypical and dubious working methods as the usual procedures of collection companies. A striking example of this is the broadcast of the report series Die Geldeinreiber - mercilessly fair in March and April 2012 by the German television station Kabel Eins . This TV format describes the everyday work of someone who is not named and obviously also not real - and therefore not registered - debt collection agency. Its muscular and predominantly black-clad employees - one of them called a machete - prefer to visit the debtors personally and relatively openly rely on intimidation in order to obtain payment of arrears. According to BDIU information, the actors in the series were employees of the Moscow debt collection team, a company that does not have a debt collection registration and thus worked illegally and which in the past repeatedly attracted attention due to dubious business practices.

Respectability

This section needs to be revised. Details should be given on the talk page. Please help to improve it , and then remove this flag.

The debt collection companies operating in Germany (apart from a few dubious companies) have a proper official registration and, as a mandatory requirement, also have competent and competent employees and feel obliged to meet the goals of the large industry associations to have open claims settled as completely as possible, but also to adequately consider the needs and needs of the debtors and ultimately to balance the interests of both sides as far as possible. However, the reputable companies suffer from the business practices of a few people and companies, the spectrum of which ranges from dubious to criminal. Sometimes the transitions are also fluid. Sometimes the written or telephone approach of debtors by individual debt collection companies, which are otherwise regarded as serious, is criticized as inappropriate or excessive.

Features and working methods of reputable debt collection companies

Evidence that indicates the seriousness of a debt collection company are:

• Registration of the company with the competent authority and corresponding entry in the legal services register . The registration, which can be viewed by everyone, is a mandatory requirement for legal debt collection activities.
• Membership in one of the industry associations that oblige their members to conduct business properly, receive and pursue complaints and which impose sanctions in the event of continued abuse: BDIU, BFIF or BDR.
• Factual and content-related response from the debt collection company after objections were raised against a claim.
• Internet research about a specific company reveals a picture that is not characterized by frequent, factual and credible complaints and warnings. It should be noted that even serious companies that regularly deal with a large number of cases will not fail to show individual expressions of displeasure.

Typical working methods of properly working debt collection agencies are:

• To persuade the debtor to pay through repeated letters, telephone or personal reminders ,
• judicial Mahn - or enforcement orders cause (collection agencies may according to § 79 paragraph 2 sentence 1 no. 4. ZPO are also active in the legal default)
• in the course of a foreclosure (if there is an enforceable title ) bring about a seizure with the help of the bailiff , in particular apply for an arrest warrant to force the submission of the financial report,
• the information of the debtor about possible legal consequences of his tardiness ( legal dunning , suit , attachment , etc.)
• the discovery of assets that are owned by the debtor and recommended to the bailiff for attachment , for example cash hidden by the debtor, hidden jewelry or hidden bank accounts,
• the realization of loan collateral ,
• negotiating and processing installment payments , deferral and settlement agreements ,
• possibly conducting negotiations with debt counseling centers , insolvency administrators or lawyers of the debtor,
• in the case of insolvent debtors, the monitoring of their solvency even over longer periods of time (especially if there is an enforceable title),
• the determination of the current address in the case of debtors who have moved unknown

According to the decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court, debt collection companies are also allowed to provide comprehensive and full advice to those seeking legal advice, even if only in a specific area. You take on the responsibility for the effective enforcement of claims and thus not just the simple dunning and collection activities or an auxiliary commercial activity. You are allowed to point out the legal situation that is intended to induce the unwilling debtor to relent out of court. And they are allowed to assert claims that require legal arguments to enforce.

Characteristics and methods of dubious companies

In 2011 and before that, there were more and more publicly presented complaints about increased cases of cost traps on the Internet (including so-called subscription traps ) and unfair telephone advertising (including with regard to gambling participation ), with attempts subsequently being made to address such alleged claims via a few and to recover conspicuous debt collection companies. However, claims in this context were often ultimately controversial or, according to prevailing case law, not tenable or enforceable. As a result, the Federal Association of Consumer Centers called on its affiliated consumer centers in the period from July to September 2011 to collect targeted consumer complaints on the subject of debt collection using a standardized data sheet. A report on the results of this survey was published on December 1, 2011. When evaluating the results, however, it must be taken into account that consumers usually only turn to a consumer advice center when grievances are obvious. It follows that the results cannot be representative and that no conclusions can be drawn about the work of the entire industry. The main results of the investigation, in which 3,671 complaints were evaluated in detail, were:

• 40% of the complaints (1,459 cases) related to a debt collection company, Deutsche Zentral Inkasso GmbH, Berlin. This company was still registered as a debt collection company in December 2011, but is no longer registered as of November 2013. In addition, the company was never a member of any of the major industry associations.
• Another 35% of the complaints (1,284 cases) were from nine other debt collection agencies.
• This means that 10 companies accounted for 75% of the complaints (2,743 cases).
  • Of these ten companies, nine were not members of the BDIU.
    • One BDIU company accounted for 3% of the complaints (125 cases). According to the BDIU, the member company in question terminated its cooperation with the causer as early as August 2011. The consumers who were contacted received an apology.
  • Two of the ten companies were based abroad and were not registered in Germany.
• In 84% of the complaints (3,081 cases) the claim was obviously unjustified.
• The alleged demands related to:
  • 54% of Internet subscription traps (1,997 cases)
  • Competition participation to 27% (998 cases)
• This corresponds to the alleged nature of the contract:
  • Via the Internet to 57% (2,092 cases)
  • 26% of unsolicited telephone advertising (952 cases)

As a result, the investigation report showed that there were considerable grievances in the period under review, caused by a few dubious companies in the areas of subscription traps on the Internet, telephone advertising and debt collection. This was followed by legislative activities, which resulted in the passing of the law against dubious business practices ( Federal Law Gazette I p. 3714 ) on October 1, 2013 . The new regulations aim to curb dubious practices in the areas of debt collection, telephone advertising and warnings without affecting the legitimate interests of serious traders. This law found great support on the part of the BDIU, but was criticized in many respects as inadequate or unsuitable.

Illegal practices represent the worst possible manifestations. The spectrum ranges from companies that consciously try to enforce mass claims from imputed and legally ineffective contracts to members of the criminal milieu or even organized crime . Such machinations can no longer be associated with the business term collection agency.

Criteria for illegally working companies:

• Lack of registration of the company with the competent authority and accordingly no entry in the legal services register.

In addition, these criteria also include criminal offenses such as:

• Threat of non-compliant evils, especially as a means of coercion , e.g. B .:
  • with the use of force against the debtor or against persons close to him, e.g. B. aimed at property damage or bodily harm or even murder .
• Actual use of force (property damage or bodily harm)
• Use of vigilante justice , e.g. B. through the legally illegitimate forcible removal of valuables and / or money from the debtor. This is therefore to be seen as theft of the debtor's property.

Criteria for dubious debt collection companies:

• Missing factual and content-related response from the debt collection company after objections to a claim were raised. In some cases, instead, further dunning steps without reference to the objections raised.
• The recovery of claims from subordinated contracts, the legal validity of which is not given or is very questionable, such as B. Subscription traps on the Internet or competition entry services (often initiated by telephone).
• Assertion of collection fees from the debtor that exceed the allowable remuneration according to RVG or RDG-EG and therefore would not have to be paid by the debtor in this amount.
• The use of dubious working methods, as listed below.

Evidence for dubious collection companies (can indicate dubious working methods, but are not reliable evidence of this. However, it is particularly important when different indications come together):

• Missing membership in one of the industry associations.
• The assertion of excessive collection fees, which increase with each letter and are sometimes out of proportion to the legally claimed original claim. This creates high pressure to pay the claim very quickly.
• Internet research on a specific company reveals frequent, credible complaints and warnings.

Typical working methods of dubious companies are:

• Failure to comply with objections to the claim.
• Public exposure (denunciation), whereby the private and / or business environment of the debtor is consciously informed about financial difficulties. The resulting embarrassment or damage to reputation (in business life often accompanied by financial damage) is intended to induce the debtor to pay.
• Attempts to intimidate the debtor, whereby the legitimate demonstration of possible legal consequences of non-payment is clearly exaggerated and in some cases inadequate or legally untenable legal consequences are threatened, sometimes under false pretenses.
  • Such an inadmissible attempt at intimidation is the threat of a Schufa entry in the case of claims that have already been disputed in a qualified manner or, in the case of such claims, even the actual cause of such a Schufa entry. Such threats are apparently used as leverage, because negative Schufa entries can greatly reduce a person's creditworthiness and the threatening assumes that some of the threatened will actually settle unjustified claims themselves for fear of doing so.

Dubious activities in the debt collection industry

These two companies can be named as exemplary examples of dubious machinations in the debt collection industry:

• Collection team Moscow . This company was not approved as a debt collection agency. It advertised with slogans like: You don't need to know Russian to understand us and presented its staff on television in black clothing with bulletproof vests, bald and with a grim appearance. The company suggested that it had a nationwide field service that would take care of claims in a powerful manner. In 2007 the public prosecutor's office in Celle investigated suspected fraud against the company. The allegation was that the company had accepted and received far more orders than it could process. In May 2008, the industry association BDIU obtained a judgment against ITM Inkasso Team Moscow as part of an injunction, which prohibited the company from announcing or carrying out debt collection services.
• Deutsche Zentral Inkasso GmbH . In the already mentioned evaluation by the Federal Association of Consumer Centers, 40% of the complaints (1,459 cases) related to Deutsche Zentral Inkasso GmbH, Berlin. This company secured the inglorious first place in the complaints table by a long way. The company acquired its dubious reputation in particular with the assertion of controversial claims in connection with subscription traps on the Internet. It repeatedly emphasized its warning letters by enclosing a copy of a court ruling that had been issued in its favor, or a draft of a complaint that was intended to create the impression that a lawsuit against the debtor was imminent. In November 2013, Deutsche Zentral Inkasso GmbH was no longer entered in the legal services register. Also at no time was there a membership in any of the major industry associations.

On May 5, 2018, the Federal Association of German Collection Companies warned of debt collection fraud and published criteria for the detection of dubious claims. Often, excessive amounts are mentioned that have arisen as a result of competitions, subscriptions or other invented purchases or contracts. The federal association recommended not to sign anything for the time being and, if in doubt, to call the specified company . In the case of debt collection fraud, the police or the consumer advice center can also be contacted.

Legal framework

This section needs to be revised. Details should be given on the talk page. Please help to improve it , and then remove this flag.

The activity of the collection agencies is subject to authorization in Germany. Anyone who does not have the official permit may not work as a debt collection company. Anyone can find out whether a debt collection agency is properly registered online via the legal services register. The authority responsible for registration and monitoring can also be seen there.

Debt collection authorization is only granted to debt collection companies with at least one person who is significantly involved in the business operations. a. meets the following requirements:

• Personal suitability and reliability are given. As a rule, this is not observed for people
  • who have been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor in connection with the practice of a profession in the past three years
  • whose financial circumstances are disordered.
• Proof of theoretical and practical expertise in the area of ​​debt collection (the basis for this is, for example, participation in a 23-day specialist training course and passing appropriate exams).

The authority responsible according to the legal services register can impose conditions on a debt collection company or prohibit the operation in whole or in part, especially if a company violates its obligations significantly or permanently. The competent authority can also revoke the collection authorization under certain circumstances, e.g. For example, if permanently unqualified legal services are provided (e.g. if, for example, dubious methods are continued and verifiably used) or if conditions are persistently violated.

This came to fruition at a Düsseldorf debt collection company, which, among other things, had processed claims that were characterized as rip-offs in various Internet forums . The Cologne Higher Regional Court thereupon imposed a binding condition against this company in June 2013. After the court judged that this condition was not sufficiently observed, the Cologne Higher Regional Court withdrew the company's entry in the legal services register. This decision was confirmed on February 10, 2014 by the Cologne Administrative Court.

Debt collection agencies often work together with private investigators and / or law firms . Until July 1, 2008, cooperation with law firms was the rule, because until then debt collection companies were only allowed to operate out of court.

In order to be able to enforce open claims against the debtor through foreclosure measures with the help of the bailiff, debt collection companies need a so-called enforcement title . This can be obtained through a lawsuit in court, through the judicial dunning procedure or through a notarial deed.

Reimbursement of pre-judicial collection costs

requirements

If the creditor commissions a debt collection company (or a lawyer) to collect a monetary claim, the question arises whether the debtor is obliged to reimburse the collection costs incurred. If the answer to the question results in a right to compensation for material damage, the further question arises as to the amount up to which the costs are reimbursable.

A prerequisite for the claim for damages (§ § 249  ff. BGB) for collection costs is

1. the delay of the debtor ( § 280 , paragraph 1, 2 i v m... § 286 BGB) or tort ( § 823 BGB; § 826 BGB).
2. At least for consumers in the event of default, at least one reminder from the creditor himself before commissioning a debt collection company (or lawyer) ( § 254 Paragraph 2, § 242 BGB.)
3. The fulfillment of the contractually agreed obligations of both parties as well as compliance with the indispensable law (NJW 2016, 3332) and
4. the appropriateness and necessity of the commission from the economic point of view of the obligee. ().

These requirements must be checked in each individual case

Cases where pre-litigation collection costs are non-refundable

Missing registration

If the collection company violates the registration obligation , collection costs are not reimbursable due to the legal prohibition ( § 12 RDG, § 134 BGB).

Violation of disclosure and information obligations

If the collection company violates the disclosure and information obligation ( § 11a RDG), no collection costs are reimbursable, at least until the legal obligation has been fulfilled.

Disputing the main claim or insolvency

If the obligee has knowledge that the debtor does not want to fulfill or that the debtor has a (temporary) insolvency , collection costs are not reimbursable. In both of these cases, the obligee is at fault (Section 254 (1) BGB). The creditor's knowledge is based on the fact that a reasonable and economically thinking person can recognize from the evidence whether there is an unwillingness or inability to pay ; at least one consumer does not have to explicitly refer to one of the two facts. However, in the event of a lawsuit, the obligee must always be granted legal protection to present, contrary to the recognizable evidence, on a case-by-case basis why the commissioning was exceptionally necessary and appropriate.

Insolvency can be determined, for example, via the public debtor registers or the scoring procedures of the credit agencies. In this case, the claim is to be titled via the judicial dunning procedure.

If the debtor disputes the main claim, the pre-judicial commissioning of a debt collection company (or lawyer) is unnecessary and the costs are therefore not reimbursable because a judicial dispute becomes inevitable. Therefore, in addition to titled claims , debt collection companies should only accept claims that are likely to be undisputed (cf. § 24 BDIU statutes ).

Main claim is void

Even if the aforementioned requirements are met and a debt collection company has been commissioned to collect the debt, the collection costs are not reimbursable (§ 24 BDIU statutes) if one of the following cases applies:

• The debtor became the victim of dubious business practice (§ 134 or § 138 BGB BGBl. 2013 I p. 3714 ) and therefore denies the existence of the main claim.
• There are interest rates made as principal claims, consisting of a usury emerged and therefore particularly immoral (§ 138 BGB), and therefore the debtor denies the existence of the principal claim.
• The main claim is statute-barred (§ § 194  ff. BGB), and the debtor raises a corresponding objection.
• With regard to the main claim, the remaining debt has been released (§ § 286  ff. InsO ), and the debtor raises a corresponding objection.

If collection costs are asserted in one of the three aforementioned cases, the collection company (or the lawyer) exposes itself to suspicion of fraud ( Section 263 StGB ). The suspicion of fraud with regard to collection costs always applies to non-registered collection companies.

Unqualified legal services

An unqualified legal service exists, for example, if debt collection companies use dubious or even illegal business practices to collect debts. Cases emerge again and again in which debt collection companies attract public attention due to unqualified and thus dubious business practices . In December 2012, for example, the Cologne Higher Regional Court, as the competent authority, issued a debt collection company with a restrictive, binding condition on its conduct towards customers, whose business conduct was exposed to multiple complaints and whose activities were followed by the interested public. The debt collection company had quoted comparable court rulings from debtors and thus created the intended impression that a defense against the asserted claim had little or no prospect of success. The debt collection company had unsuccessfully appealed against this condition before the Cologne Administrative Court (VG Köln) , so that the condition was legally effective from June 2013. Since the condition was not observed in the following either, the OLG Cologne revoked the debt collection agency's permission due to a lack of reliability; the revocation of the permit was confirmed by the Cologne Administrative Court , the legal complaint directed against this was unsuccessful in April 2014 at the Münster Higher Administrative Court (OVG Münster).

A debt collection company may not threaten a debtor with a Schufa entry and put it under pressure. According to § 2 No. 8 UWG , the impairment of the freedom of choice is inappropriately an unfair act . The ability of the consumer to make an informed decision is noticeably impaired, and thus the consumer is prompted to make a business decision that he would not otherwise would have met.

Corporate debt collection

If the requirements are met, i.e. despite the legitimate main claim, collection costs are also in the case of group collections - the collection company is a subsidiary of the client or is otherwise controlled by the client (within the meaning of § 15  ff. AktG ; a group is not necessary according to § 18 AktG) - non-refundable.

On the one hand, the time spent by a obligee, regardless of whether the activity is carried out by their own staff , is never reimbursable, because this expenditure is always added to the obligations of the obligee. Therefore, the construct of artificial damage through outsourcing your own receivables management to your own or affiliated debt collection company is not reimbursable with regard to the collection costs. The only exception to this are the material costs of the reminder.

On the other hand, there is no legal service in the case of group debt collection (Section 2 Paragraph 1, Paragraph 3 No. 6 RDG). A group debt collection company that is nevertheless registered in the legal services register deceives business dealings by means of the economic ties with its client. Loss of time is part of general life and business risk.

In contrast, the BDIU takes the legal opinion that collection costs are also permissible if the creditor company and the collection company belong to the same parent company . Because creditors and debt collection companies are separate legal entities, and the debt collection company is collecting a third party claim. The resulting collection costs are to be paid by the debtor.

"Assault-like" assignment

For example, if a debt collection company (or lawyer) is commissioned directly after a return debit , which always gives rise to a delay (Section 286 (2) No. 4 BGB), without at least a reminder from the obligee himself, the collection costs are not reimbursable (Section 254 (2) BGB). The reminder of the obligee takes place within the framework of the requirement of good faith , since the reason for the return debit does not have to lie in the sphere of influence of the debtor (cf. § 675o para. 1 sentence 2 BGB) and the own reminder corresponds to the requirement of the safest way. The same applies if the default occurs due to contractual provisions and a legal service provider is commissioned directly to a consumer without further warning (Section 254 (2) BGB). In contrast, any damage caused by default, especially in the case of lower item values, does not represent particularly great damage for a company, which should be pointed out again.

Success commission

A success commission is non-refundable in the area of ​​debt collection (Section 4 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 RDGEG in conjunction with Section 4a RVG ).

Fantasy fees

Any account management fees, reactivation fees, appeal fees, titling fees etc. are non-refundable (Section 4 (1) sentence 1 RDGEG.).

Partial reimbursement is possible

Actually and legally simple cases

The obligations of the obligee include the efforts of debt collection. These efforts include reminders, telephone calls and face-to-face meetings with the debtor and the offer of installment payments . This effort is, is busy with the exception of the material cost of written warnings, whether this staff, non-refundable, the obligation of the creditor, however, ends on the grounds of delay, the subsequent debt collection is not added, so that the creditors as soon as his obligations fulfilled the necessity of a commissioning depends on the actual organization of the obligee.

In simple cases such as the termination of a tenant who is in arrears or the collection of a claim from a subsequent payment of heating costs by a commercial landlord, the costs of a debt collection company are not reimbursable. In contrast to mass debt collection, when a lawyer is commissioned on a case-by-case basis, the collection costs can be reimbursed, even in simple cases, if the obligee has met the requirements mentioned at the beginning and the debtor shows no reaction.

However, collection costs are not to be reimbursed if the defaulted debtor promises to meet the undisputed claim in the near future and the creditor has no reason to doubt this promise and nevertheless hires a collection company / legal advisor.

Double assignment

The additional costs resulting from the cumulative commissioning of debt collection companies and lawyers are not reimbursable (Section 254 (2) BGB). For the lawyer, this procedure can constitute a breach of professional law ( Section 43 BRAO).

There is no double commissioning if the requirements for commissioning a debt collection company were met and the solvent debtor only disputes the claim after commissioning the debt collection company, as in this case the claim can only be enforced through the lawsuit.

Debtor does not pay with subsequent payment suit

If the obligor on the efforts of the billing company, although no reason for exclusion, no payment and will be for the purpose of collecting a payment suit a lawyer mandated , the question depends on the eligibility of collection costs according to whether the appointment in the first place necessary and appropriate , was well Furthermore, whether the debtor is a consumer or a commercial enterprise .

If there is a claim to compensation, half of the business fee incurred , but at least the part that exceeds a 0.75 fee , which has to be fully reimbursed in the event of (partial) payment, is refundable ( Section 4 (5) sentence 1 RDGEG i V. m. RDGEG , § 15a Paragraph 1, Annex 1 (to § 2 Paragraph 2) Part 3 preliminary 3 Paragraph 4 RVG ; LG Rostock , June 1, 2006, 4 O 392/05 ; NJW 2013, 1393).

Debtor does not pay with a subsequent dunning procedure

If the debtor makes no payment to the efforts of the collection company (or lawyer), although there is no reason for exclusion, and if the judicial dunning procedure is now being carried out, the question of whether the collection costs can be reimbursed depends on whether the commissioning was primarily necessary and appropriate, as well as further whether the debtor is a consumer or a commercial enterprise.

Reminders are both actually and legally the simplest legal activity that a company with its own commercially trained staff can do itself. In this case, the appointment of a lawyer is not necessary or appropriate. However, the restriction as described above must also be taken into account here.

In contrast, a small debt collection company can be useful if it actively carries out telephone debt collection and corresponding debtor visits by its own sales representatives .

Debt collection companies that collect debts en masse are, however, not practical as far as consumers are concerned, as an individual approach for each individual case is not possible due to the amount of transactions to be processed. Apart from that, the debtors showed no reaction to the creditor's own reminders, so that no further reaction is to be expected.

If the debtor is a commercial enterprise, it is advisable to hire a debt collection company if it is also a commercial information agency or a credit protection organization. In this case, the commercial debtor endangers creditworthiness and reputation, so that a payment can be expected if a corresponding debt collection company is commissioned.

The burden of proof as to whether an appropriate and necessary assignment can be assumed lies with the creditor. However, 50 years ago the BGH saw the burden of proof on the debtor in contradiction to the burden of proof principles of other claims for reimbursement of expenses.

If there is a claim to reimbursement, only the collection costs that the obligee actually incurred are to be reimbursed.

Reimbursement is available

Debtor pays

If a debt collection company (or a lawyer) is commissioned if the requirements are met and there is no reason for exclusion, the collection costs are to be reimbursed if the debtor pays at least in part, as this is expedient.

Reimbursement of collection costs in the dunning procedure

The reimbursement of costs in the dunning procedure depends on the expediency and necessity of the commissioning (Section 4 (4) sentence 2 RDGEG in conjunction with Section 91 (1) ZPO).

Cases in which collection costs are not reimbursable as part of the dunning procedure

Double assignment

If the pre-judicial efforts of a debt collection company are unsuccessful and a lawyer is then commissioned for the dunning procedure, its additional costs are not reimbursable due to the cost saving requirement (cf. § 91 ZPO) (§ 254 Paragraph 2 BGB).

Since debt collection companies can carry out dunning procedures ( Section 79 (2) No. 4 ZPO), the parties involved expose themselves to the suspicion of a circumvention strategy (Section 4 (4) sentence 2 RDGEG) in order to cause significantly higher costs (1.5 fees according to Appendix 1 (to § 2 Paragraph 2) Part 3 Section 3 U-Section 2 VV No. 3305/3308 § 13 RVG plus expenses). As already shown elsewhere, the double assignment also represents a professional violation for the lawyer.

Actually and legally simple cases

The dunning procedure is designed in such a way that it can also be carried out by legal laypersons. Comprehensive, easy-to-understand aids to fill in are included with the application forms. The dunning procedure is therefore also counted among the obligations of the obligee in the context of debt collection, so that no legal help is necessary for business-experienced obligee and in simple cases. Exceptions to this are cases in which the debtor does not react in advance of the court .

Reimbursement is available

Debtor does not react before the court

If the debtor does not react in advance of the judicial process, it can usually be assumed that the collection costs incurred by a legal adviser are reimbursable in the context of the dunning procedure. The mostly non-existent technical prerequisites for participation in electronic legal communication and the complexity of the procedure are taken into account.

Reimbursement of collection costs in foreclosure proceedings

The reimbursement of costs in the foreclosure procedure is based on the expediency and necessity of the commissioning (§ 4 Paragraph 4 Sentence 2 RDGEG in conjunction with § 788 ZPO). The mostly non-existent technical prerequisites for participation in electronic legal communication and the complexity of the procedure are taken into account.

Reimbursement of collection costs in insolvency proceedings

Collection companies and lawyers are open to collection in insolvency proceedings ( Section 174 InsO).

Amount of collection costs

Pre-litigation collection costs

If a debt collection company has been commissioned, the reimbursement ability is always limited to the remuneration that a lawyer can request under the Lawyers' Remuneration Act (Section 4 (5) sentence 1 RDGEG). If a reduction was agreed in the context of the commissioning in the event of failure, the reimbursement claim is limited to this reduced amount.

Business fee

Since reminders are simple letters, the debt collection company / lawyer is entitled to a 0.3 business fee (Appendix 1 (to § 2 Paragraph 2) Part 2 Section 3 VV No. 2301 § 13 RVG. However, courts have A 1.3 business fee has already been pronounced several times, albeit regularly without further justification (Appendix 1 (to § 2 Paragraph 2) Part 2 Section 3 VV No. 2300 § 13 RVG. This factor represents the value for an average difficult or extensive activity.

Basically, debt collection costs by decision of the Constitutional Court are made as default damages if the appropriate conditions are present (see. In the corresponding section). In the decision, however, no decision was made on the amount of the collection costs.

The amount of the remuneration depends on the order placed by the client, but the creditor does not decide on the amount of the reimbursable claim for damages.

The VV no. 2301 § 13 RVG provides for a fee rate of 0.3 if the order is limited to a simple letter. Reminders are generally rated as simple letters, as they contain neither major disputes with the matter nor complex legal statements. The fee is also not increased by sending further reminders.

The VV no. 2300 § 13 RVG provides for a fee rate between 0.5 and 2.5, whereby a rate above 1.3 can only be requested for either extensive or difficult work. In the corresponding preliminary 2.3 para. 4 RVG it is determined that this fee is due for the operation of a business, which also includes the information and the drafting of the contract. This means the comprehensive work of a lawyer on a case-by-case basis, including reading specialist literature and conducting concrete negotiations with the other party.

If the obligee gives this order, he usually incurs additional costs that are not necessary (Section 254 (2) BGB), so that only the 0.3 rate has to be replaced. In fact, the fee arises if activities that go beyond sending reminders, such as telephone collection, address inquiries, are necessary and performed. The amount of the rate is then based on the effort actually made, usually the 0.5 rate.

Settlement fee

When concluding an installment payment agreement or the like, the 1.5 agreement fee arises (Appendix 1 (to § 2 Paragraph 2) Part 1 VV No. 1000 § 13 in conjunction with preliminary .. 1 Paragraph 1 No. 2 RVG ). The object value is reduced to 20% ( Section 31b RVG. The prerequisites for this are

1. the agreement that these costs will be borne by the debtor (analogous to § 98 ZPO) and
2. - also with regard to the amount of the fee rate - the active participation of a lawyer in actual discussions with the other party in which the legal questions of the agreement are negotiated within the framework of an appointment.

The agreement fee is then not paid by a consumer if the installment contract concluded away from business premises was and consumers the contract deadline revokes ( § 312g i. V. m. § § 355  f. BGB). It is also not payable if it involves another financing transaction with a net loan amount of at least 200 euros and the consumer cancels the contract in due time ( Section 491 (1) and (2) in conjunction with Section 495 (1) , 2 No. 1, 355 f. BGB).

If the debtor is wrested from the installment payment agreement with an impermissible threat of a credit reporting agency report or an application for financial information (cf. § 802c ZPO) or with an untenable threat of criminal charges for fraudulent entry , the fee is not refundable if the debtor challenges the agreement for the reasons mentioned above ( Section 123 BGB).

Post and telecommunications expenses

For this purpose, the fees charged for postal and telecommunications services are either reimbursed in full as incurred, with the exception of the costs for asserting the remuneration , or at a flat rate of 20 percent of the fees, but a maximum of 20 euros (Annex 1 (to Section 2 Para. 2) Part 7 VV No. 7001/7002 RVG).

value added tax

The applicable sales tax on the remuneration, unless the small business regulation is used ( § 19 ) Paragraph  UStG ), in full (Appendix 1 (to § 2 Paragraph 2) Part 7 VV No. 7008 RVG), is only to be paid replace if the client / client is not entitled to input tax deduction (§ 249 ff. BGB).

Authorization to issue ordinances

The Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection has not yet made use of the possibility of restricting the remuneration for collection companies even more clearly, in particular to eliminate the disproportion ^(b) between low main claims and collection costs (Section 4 (5) sentence 2 RDGEG.

^(b) Up to an item value of 500 euros, a full fee is always 45 euros (Section 13 (1) RVG).

expenditure

If further services were provided, such as address determination or credit checks, the expenses for this are to be reimbursed (§ 675 in conjunction with § 670 BGB).

example

If, for example, the object value is a maximum , the fee is (Section 13 (1) RVG). This means that the business fee is increased to the minimum amount (Section 13 (2) RVG). The flat rate for fees for postal and telecommunications services is . This results in a net remuneration over . The sales tax charged additionally to the obligee is claimed as input tax. ${\displaystyle 500{,}00\,\mathrm {\euro} }$ ${\displaystyle 45{,}00\,\mathrm {\euro} }$ ${\displaystyle 45{,}00\,\mathrm {\euro} \cdot 0{,}3=13{,}50\,\mathrm {\euro} }$ ${\displaystyle 15{,}00\,\mathrm {\euro} }$ ${\displaystyle 15{,}00\,\mathrm {\euro} \cdot 20\,\%=3{,}00\,\mathrm {\euro} }$ ${\displaystyle 15{,}00\,\mathrm {\euro} +3{,}00\,\mathrm {\euro} =18{,}00\,\mathrm {\euro} }$ ${\displaystyle 18{,}00\,\mathrm {\euro} \cdot 19\,\%=3{,}42\,\mathrm {\euro} }$

Dunning procedure

In the judicial dunning procedure, a fee of up to a maximum of 25 euros can be reimbursed for debt collection companies ( Section 91 (1) ZPO in conjunction with Section 4 (4) sentence 2 RDGEG.). The remuneration includes expenses for postal and telecommunications services as well as sales tax.

If a lawyer is commissioned, a 1.0 procedural fee can be claimed (Annex 1 (to Section 2 Paragraph 2) Part 3 Section 3 U Section 2 VV No. 3305 Section 13 RVG). Half of the business fee incurred before the court is offset against the procedural fee, but not more than 0.75 (Appendix 1 (to Section 2, Paragraph 2) Part 3, Section 3, Preliminary, 3, Paragraph 4 VV, Section 13 RVG).

For this purpose, the fees charged for post and telecommunications services are either reimbursed in full as incurred, with the exception of the costs for claiming the remuneration, or a flat-rate payment of 20 percent of the fees, but a maximum of 20 euros (Annex 1 (to Section 2 Para. 2) Part 7 VV No. 7001/7002 RVG).

The applicable sales tax on the remuneration, insofar as the small business regulation is not used ( § 19 ) Paragraph  UStG ), in full (Annex 1 (to § 2 Paragraph 2) Part 7 VV No. 7008 RVG) is only then to be paid replace if the client / client is not entitled to input tax deduction (§ 249 ff. BGB).

An additional 0.5 procedural fee (Annex 1 (to Section 2 Paragraph 2) Part 3 Section 3 U Section 2 VV No. 3308 RVG) can be claimed for the application for the enforcement order. In addition, if these have not yet been exhausted in the case of flat-rate billing, additional expenses and, if applicable, sales tax,

If the debt collection company or the lawyer provided additional services such as address determination or credit checks, the expenses for this are to be reimbursed (§ 675 in conjunction with § 670 BGB).

example

Debt collection agencies

If the remuneration amounts to , it consists of the net remuneration and the sales tax . The creditor asserts the sales tax as input tax. ${\displaystyle 25{,}00\,\mathrm {\euro} }$ ${\displaystyle \textstyle {\frac {25{,}00\,\mathrm {\euro} }{1+19\,\%}}=21{,}01\,\mathrm {\euro} }$ ${\displaystyle 25{,}00\,\mathrm {\euro} -21{,}01\,\mathrm {\euro} =3{,}99\,\mathrm {\euro} }$

Lawyer

If, for example, the object value is a maximum , the fee is (Section 13 (1) RVG). The procedural fee is thus . The pre-judicial 0.3 business fee will be credited . This amount is to be increased to half the minimum fee (Section 13 (2) RVG). After crediting, the procedural fee is The flat rate for fees for postal and telecommunications services is . This results in a net remuneration over . The sales tax charged additionally to the obligee is claimed as input tax. ${\displaystyle 500{,}00\,\mathrm {\euro} }$ ${\displaystyle 45{,}00\,\mathrm {\euro} }$ ${\displaystyle 45{,}00\,\mathrm {\euro} \cdot 1=45{,}00\,\mathrm {\euro} }$ ${\displaystyle \textstyle 45{,}00\,\mathrm {\euro} \cdot {\frac {0{,}3}{2}}\cdot (-1)=-6{,}75\,\mathrm {\euro} }$ ${\displaystyle \textstyle \left(-{\frac {1}{2}}\right)\cdot 15{,}00\,\mathrm {\euro} =-7{,}50\,\mathrm {\euro} }$ ${\displaystyle 45{,}00\,\mathrm {\euro} -7{,}50\,\mathrm {\euro} =37{,}50\,\mathrm {\euro} }$ ${\displaystyle 37{,}50\,\mathrm {\euro} \cdot 20\,\%=7{,}50\,\mathrm {\euro} }$ ${\displaystyle 37{,}50\,\mathrm {\euro} +7{,}50\,\mathrm {\euro} =45{,}00\,\mathrm {\euro} }$ ${\displaystyle 45{,}00\,\mathrm {\euro} \cdot 19\,\%=8{,}55\,\mathrm {\euro} }$

If the enforcement order is also applied for, the additional procedural fee is . The additional flat rate in this case is . This results in a net remuneration over further . The sales tax charged additionally to the obligee is claimed as input tax. ${\displaystyle 45{,}00\,\mathrm {\euro} \cdot 0{,}5=22{,}50\,\mathrm {\euro} }$ ${\displaystyle 22{,}50\,\mathrm {\euro} \cdot 20\,\%=4{,}50\,\mathrm {\euro} }$ ${\displaystyle 22{,}50\,\mathrm {\euro} +4{,}50\,\mathrm {\euro} =27{,}00\,\mathrm {\euro} }$ ${\displaystyle 27{,}00\,\mathrm {\euro} \cdot 19\,\%=5{,}13\,\mathrm {\euro} }$

The total fee is therefore plus sales tax. ${\displaystyle 45{,}00\,\mathrm {\euro} +27{,}00\,\mathrm {\euro} =72{,}00\,\mathrm {\euro} }$

Proof of power of representation

The debt collection agency is the representative of the client / creditor ( § 164 ff. BGB): If there are doubts about the authority to represent, the debt collection agency must present the original authorization upon request. However, there is no obligation to present a power of attorney without being asked. The often quoted § 410 BGB has nothing to do with this. It only concerns the case that a claim has been assigned to a company, which is not the case per se with debt collection agencies. Only in the (exceptional) case of an actual assignment can the submission of the assignment deed be requested with reference to Section 410 BGB. In principle, however, a copy is sufficient for the requirements of Section 410 BGB.

privacy

Data protection concerns banking secrecy and confidentiality.

Banking secrecy

This section needs to be revised. Details should be given on the talk page. Please help to improve it , and then remove this flag.

The issue of data protection and banking secrecy was legally controversial . If the debt collection company acquires a claim, it needs the debtor's creditworthiness documents to assess the intrinsic value. These are subject to banking secrecy. From this fact it was argued in lower instances as well as in parts of the literature (e.g. in a statement for a technical discussion of the finance committee of the German Bundestag on September 19, 2007) that a sale of receivables was inadmissible.

In February 2007 the Federal Court of Justice ruled that contractual banking secrecy does not prevent the effectiveness of an assignment of credit claims. It is true that banking secrecy can be violated. However, this does not result in the ineffectiveness of the assignment, but only a claim for damages. However, since the assignment usually does not cause any damage to the debtor, this does not lead to anything.

The so-called amendments I to III of the Federal Data Protection Act that came into force between September 1, 2009 and June 11, 2010 regulate a.o. a. the transmission of data on bad debts explicitly for the first time. They contain u. a. Legal basis for the transmission options to credit agencies. The data subject's rights to information have been expanded, as have the sanctions for violations of data protection regulations.

Confidentiality

Professional groups that are subject to a duty of confidentiality ( § 203 StGB ) can only commission debt collection companies if either the debtor has explicitly consented to the disclosure of information or if there is a justifying emergency ( § 34 StGB).

consent

Consent to pass on information is an exception to the confidentiality regulation. Anyone who wants to pass on the information must always take the initiative and obtain express consent (NJW 1991, 2955).

Presumed consent

A presumed consent instead of the consent obtained can only be assumed if the debtor is not interested in secrecy. This must be carefully checked in each individual case.

Informing notices are not sufficient in this respect. An objection by the debtor is not required, consent must always be obtained.

Justifying emergency

The legal interest protected by Section 203 of the Criminal Code is eligible for an emergency (BGHZ 115, 123). Section 34 of the Criminal Code can be understood to mean that there is justification for the disclosure of information for the purpose of enforcing claims.

If the debtor does not pay, this can be seen as a present threat to the financial interests of the party bound to secrecy. The transfer of information is necessary if no milder, equally well-suited means is available. It is unlawful if the claim is enforceable and due (Section 34 sentence 1 1st half sentence StGB). The state of emergency also requires that the protected interest (interest in disclosure by passing on the information) outweighs the impaired interest (interest in confidentiality). The necessary weighing of interests (§ 34 sentence 1 2nd half sentence StGB) allows for the consideration that the debtor has caused the information to be passed on through his behavior ( § 228 BGB). Commissioning a debt collection company (or mandating a lawyer) can be seen as a suitable means (Section 34 sentence 2 StGB).

Mild, equally suitable means

The recovery of a claim by the person obliged to maintain secrecy is an equally suitable means for commissioning a debt collection company. Since no disclosure of information is necessary, it is the milder means. The commissioning of the debt collection company is only possible after the failure of this measure.

requirements

In order for a debt collection company to be commissioned on the basis of a justifiable state of emergency (NJOZ 2015, 1593 (1594 f.), The party obliged to maintain confidentiality must

1. draw up an invoice and remind the debtor himself.
2. In the reminder, notify the debtor that in the event of further non-payment he will pass on the information to a debt collection company (or a lawyer) and to what extent this will act.
3. Only and exclusively pass on the information (name, address, date of service provision, specific service) that is necessary to assess whether the claim is justified in terms of amount and to enforce the claim.

Acceptable framework

Only the commissioning to collect the third-party claim in the name of another or the authorization to collect the third-party claim in one's own name is permitted.

An assignment - even if only limited to the purpose of collection - is always inadmissible, as it affects the debtor's interest in secrecy even more due to the surrender claim with regard to the evidence ( § 402 BGB).

Data transfer to credit agencies

requirements

In the transmission of personal information through a collection company to a credit reporting agency (eg. Schufa ) always lies a data processing before ( § 3 , para. 4 no. 3 Act). If the person concerned, whose data is to be transmitted to a credit agency, has not consented to this processing , data processing is only permitted if the debt collection company is entitled to transmit it ( Section 4 (1) BDSG). The requirement of data avoidance and data economy must be observed ( § 3a BDSG), whereby the data transmitted must be clear and true.

Justifications

The authorization to transfer data without the consent of the person concerned is permitted ( Section 28a (1) sentence 1 BDSG), if in total

1. the debt is due
2. the person concerned does not
3. the transmission is necessary to safeguard legitimate interests and
4. additionally

• the claim is titled (Section 28a (1) sentence 1 no. 1 BDSG) or
• it is a claim established in the course of insolvency proceedings against which the person concerned has not registered an objection (Section 28a (1) sentence 1 no.2 BDSG) or
• the claim has been recognized by the person concerned (Section 28a, Paragraph 1, Sentence 1, No. 3 BDSG) or
• in the case of an undisputed and undisputed claim, at least two written reminders have been sent to the person concerned after the due date has occurred. A deadline of four weeks from the first reminder must be observed before the data is transmitted. The person concerned must be informed in good time about the intended transmission, whereby this can happen at the earliest with the first reminder (Section 28a Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 4 BDSG) or
• a contract can be terminated without notice due to payment arrears and the person concerned is informed in advance of the intended transfer (Section 28a (1) sentence 1 no. 5 BDSG).

Legitimate interest

To ensure that the collection and use of personal data is in the overriding general interest and that the principle of proportionality is maintained, there must be a sufficient guarantee of the correctness of the data. There is no legitimate interest in the transmission of incorrect data (within the meaning of Section 28a Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 BDSG). When interpreting whether data transmission is permissible in individual cases, it must be taken into account that the Federal Data Protection Act is intended to protect the person concerned from impairments in their general personal rights ( Section 1 (1) BDSG).

Burden of presentation and proof

The burden of demonstration and proof of whether a transfer is permissible lies with the body that carries out the transfer.

In order to lawfully transmit data relating to a third-party claim, the debt collection company must prove that it has been commissioned by the creditor to collect the receivables on the one hand and that it is authorized to transmit the data on the other hand , whereby the commissioning must meet the requirements of Section 11 BDSG. When transmitting the data, care must be taken that the data is truthful and that it is clear who is the reporter and who is the owner of the claim.

If the debt collection company becomes the new owner of the claim after the purchase of a receivable, data transfer is permitted if it can be proven that the former third party claim is being asserted in its own name. It should be noted here that titled claims must first be transferred to the debt collection company so that data can be transferred legally, as the entry would otherwise be incorrect.

literature

• Wolfgang Jäckle: Debt collection with heart and mind . In: VuR . No. 11 . Nomos Verlag , November 1, 2014, ISSN  0930-8369 , p. 405-406 , editorial .
• Walter Seitz (Hrsg.): Inkasso-Handbuch: Law and Practice of Inkassowesens . Germany, Austria, Switzerland. 4th edition. CHBeck , 2015, ISBN 978-3-406-51560-6 (When using it, the proximity of the work to the BDIU must be observed (Jäckle, VuR 2016, 60 fn. 4 with additional notes )).
• Timo Raffael Beck: Collection companies and the success of debt collection . With a foreword by Prof. Dr. Werner Neus . 1st edition. Springer Gabler , Wiesbaden 2014, ISBN 978-3-658-05465-6 , doi : 10.1007 / 978-3-658-05466-3 ( limited preview in Google book search [accessed November 30, 2016]).
• Heinz E. Bräunle: Examination fields in external problem loan processing . In: Axel Becker u. a. (Ed.): Examination of problem credit areas: MaRisk-compliant system, functional and individual engagement tests . 2nd Edition. Finanz Colloquium Heidelberg , Heidelberg 2012, ISBN 978-3-940976-94-9 , p. 199-369 .

Web links

Commons :  Collection agencies - collection of images

• Legal services registers of the federal and state governments
• Federal Association of German Debt Collection Companies V. (BDIU)
• Federal Association for Collection and Receivables Management e. V. (BFIF)
• Federal Association of German Legal Advisers / Legal Service Providers e. V. (BDR)
• The consumer advice centers to debt collection agencies
• The NDR on The Debt Collectors - Billionaire Debt Collection

Individual evidence

1. ↑ definition. In: inkasso.de. BDIU, accessed on November 22, 2016 . 
2. ↑ Timo Raffael Beck, Debt Collection Companies and Success in Debt Collection , 2014, p. 16
3. ^ Fritz Knapp Verlag (ed.), Journal for the entire credit system , Volume 9, 1956, p. 646
4. ↑ BVerfG, decision of February 20, 2002, Az .: 1 BvR 423/99 = NJW 2002, 1190
5. ↑ BVerfG, decision of August 14, 2004, Az .: 1 BvR 725/03 = BVerfGK 4, 20
6. ↑ BT-Drs. 16/3655 of November 30, 2006, draft of a law to revise legal advice law , p. 43
7. ↑ Christopher Seidel, Inkasso Kompendium , 2019, No. 105
8. ↑ BT-Drs. 16/3655 of November 30, 2006, draft of a law to reorganize legal advice , p. 48
9. ↑ BT-Drs. 16/3655 of November 30, 2006, draft of a law to reorganize legal advice , p. 48
10. ↑ BDIU, working method , accessed on November 22, 2016
11. ↑ BT-Drs. 16/3655 of November 30, 2006, draft of a law to reorganize legal advice , p. 48
12. ↑ BaFin of January 5, 2009, information sheet - information on factoring facts sheet factoring. Statutory facts of factoring, demarcation issues. In: bafin.de. BaFin, January 5, 2009, accessed on November 23, 2016 . 
13. ↑ BT-Drs. 16/3655 of November 30, 2006, draft of a law to reorganize legal advice , p. 48
14. ↑ BGH , judgment of October 21, 2014, VI ZR 507/13
15. ↑ What debt collection is. In: inkasso.de. BDIU, accessed on November 24, 2016 . Working method. In: inkasso.de. BDIU, accessed on November 24, 2016 . 
     
16. ^ ^{A b} Timo Raffael Beck: Debt collection companies and the success of debt collection . With a foreword by Prof. Dr. Werner Neus. 1st edition. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden 2014, ISBN 978-3-658-05465-6 , 2.3.1 Historical development, p. 23 ff ., doi : 10.1007 / 978-3-658-05466-3 ( limited preview in Google Book Search [accessed November 30, 2016]).
17. ↑ Sharp criticism of the "law against dubious business practices" - dead regulation of the debt collection industry feared - First comprehensive industry study on the debt collection market in Germany: Over 50 billion euros in receivables, currently more than 15 million cases in out-of-court debt collection. (No longer available online.) In: inkasso.de. BDIU, May 24, 2012, archived from the original on August 24, 2014 ; Retrieved November 18, 2016 . 
18. ↑ Thomas Weber: The order of legal advice in Germany after 1945 . Ed .: Thomas Duve , Hans-Peter Haferkamp , Joachim Rückert and Christoph Schönberger (=  contributions to the legal history of the 20th century . No. 64 ). 1st edition. Mohr Siebeck , 2010, ISBN 978-3-16-150378-8 , ISSN  0934-0955 , p. 99 ( full text in Google Book Search [accessed December 14, 2016]). About us. In: rechtsbeistand.de. BDR, accessed December 14, 2016 .
     
19. ^ H. Walter Heinze: Welcome to the Federal Association of German Legal Advisers / Legal Service Providers. In: rechtsbeistand.de. BDR, accessed December 29, 2016 . 
20. ↑ ^{a b c} Associations that support service providers under the Legal Services Act. In: Rechtssdienstleistungsregister.de. Justice portal of the federal and state governments, accessed on December 29, 2016 . 
21. ^ History. In: inkasso.de. BDIU, accessed on November 25, 2016 . 
22. ↑ Welcome to the Bundesverband BFIF e. V. In: bfif.de. BFIF, accessed on December 14, 2016 : "The Federal Association for Debt Collection and Receivables Management eV (BFIF eV) was founded in April 2010." 
23. ↑ Proof of competence by BFIF Inkasso Akademie®. (No longer available online.) In: bfif.de. BFIF, archived from the original on December 29, 2016 ; accessed on December 29, 2016 . 
24. ↑ § 15 FAO: Specialist Lawyers Regulations. In: jurion.de. Jurion , accessed December 29, 2016 . 
25. ↑ Qualification as a data protection officer. (No longer available online.) In: bfif.de. BFIF, archived from the original on December 29, 2016 ; accessed on December 29, 2016 . 
26. ↑ external data protection officer. In: bfif.de. BFIF, accessed December 29, 2016 . 
27. ↑ BFIF - certification -. In: bfif.de. BFIF, accessed December 29, 2016 . 
28. ↑ Complaint Management - BFIF.de. In: bfif.de. BFIF, accessed December 29, 2016 . 
29. ↑ About FENCA. (No longer available online.) In: fenca.eu. FENCA, archived from the original on December 30, 2016 ; accessed on December 30, 2016 . 
30. ↑ Between cliché and reality - ignorance creates prejudices. In: World special edition receivables management , October 23, 2013. S. III.
31. ↑ The Debt Collectors - Mercilessly Fair! (No longer available online.) In: Kabel eins . ProSiebenSat.1 Digital , 2012, archived from the original on November 2, 2014 ; Retrieved November 18, 2016 . 
32. ↑ BDIU press release of March 26, 2012: The Debt Collectors - Mercilessly Fair: New TV Low Point - Debt Collection Association calls on consumer advocates and politicians to finally take action against dubious business practices. ( Memento from January 9, 2014 in the Internet Archive ) (PDF file; 65.2 KB)
33. ↑ Heinz E. Bräunle: Examination fields in the external problem loan processing. In: Processing and Examination Guide Examination of Problem Credit Areas. 2nd edition, pp. 217-226.
34. ↑ ^{a b c} Registration according to § 10 RDG. (As of November 15, 2013).
35. ↑ ^{a b c d} Registration for everyone online in the legal services register: http://www.rechtsdienstleistungsregister.de/
36. ↑ BVerfG NJW-RR 2004, 1570, 1571; BVerfG NJW 2002, 1190ff .; BGH, judgment v. November 14, 2006, p. 15, XI ZR 294/05
37. ↑ Press release of BDIU from 1 December 2011: Debt Collection Association welcomes collection evaluation of Consumer Organizations - results not representative of the industry - BDIU calls for public oversight and of sanctions against rogue companies , ( Memento of 9 January 2014 Internet Archive ) December 1, 2011 , 3 pages. Retrieved November 29, 2013 (PDF file; 69 KB)
38. ↑ Commentary on the passing of the law against dubious business practices on the website of the Federal Court of Justice . Retrieved December 2, 2013.
39. ^ Klaus Bales: Law against dubious business practices. In: Claims Practitioner 09-10 / 2013, p. 214, Finanz Colloquium Heidelberg GmbH, Heidelberg, October 2013.
40. ↑ GguG: draft bill on debt collection regulation | BDIU Federal Association of German Debt Collection Companies In: www.inkasso.de. Retrieved July 6, 2016 . 
41. ↑ Information on Schufa and Schufa entries. Retrieved December 16, 2013.
42. ↑ Report regarding an injunction because of the illegal threat of a Schufa entry. Retrieved December 16, 2013.
43. ↑ Press release by ZYKLOP INKASSO Deutschland GmbH: Moscow Inkasso: Illegal and ineffective from May 2004. ( Memento from January 9, 2014 in the Internet Archive )
44. ↑ BDIU press release: Final judgment: Moscow team is not allowed to carry out debt collection , May 13, 2008. ( Memento from January 9, 2014 in the Internet Archive )
45. ^ Stiftung Warentest: test warns: Zentral Inkasso , October 27, 2011. Accessed on January 3, 2014.
46. ↑ Association warns of debt collection rip-offs: This is how you can recognize fake reminders. rtl.de from May 5, 2018.
47. ↑ Registration requirements according to § 12 of the Legal Services Act (RDG).
48. ↑ Heinz E. Bräunle: Examination fields in the external problem loan processing. In: Processing and Examination Guide Examination of Problem Credit Areas. 2nd edition, pp. 220-221.
49. ↑ With expertise to the debt collector. (No longer available online.) In: inkasso.de. BDIU, 2011, archived from the original on March 10, 2015 ; Retrieved November 18, 2016 . 
50. ↑ Supervision measures in accordance with Section 13a of the Legal Services Act (RDG).
51. ^ Klaus Bales: Law against dubious business practices. In: Claims Practitioner 09-10 / 2013, p. 216, FinanzColloquium Heidelberg, Heidelberg, October 2013.
52. ↑ Revocation of registration in accordance with Section 14 of the Legal Services Act (RDG).
53. ↑ Cologne Administrative Court, Order 1 L 1262/13 of February 10, 2014.
54. ↑ Gratis-urteile.de: VG Köln confirms the withdrawal of the entry in the legal services register ... , accessed on February 11, 2014.
55. ↑ Collection services prevented. (No longer available online.) In: datev.de. DATEV , February 10, 2014, archived from the original on February 21, 2014 ; Retrieved November 18, 2016 . 
56. ↑ Timo Raffael Beck: Debt collection company and the success of debt collection . With a foreword by Prof. Dr. Werner Neus. 1st edition. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden 2014, ISBN 978-3-658-05465-6 , 2.3.4 Collection costs, p. 29 ff ., doi : 10.1007 / 978-3-658-05466-3 ( limited preview in Google Book Search [accessed December 19, 2016]).
57. ^ ^{A b c} Otto Palandt / Christian Grüneberg: BGB commentary . 72nd edition. 2013, § 286 marginal no. 45 f .
58. ↑ Frank-Michael Goebel, Reimbursable legal prosecution costs for debt collection by a legal service provider , in: NJW 2016, 3332
59. ↑ NJW 2016, 3332; Wolfgang Jäckle, Dubious debt collection and no end , in: VuR 2016, 60; Wolfgang Jäckle, Pre-judicial costs of a debt collection company as default damage , in: NJW 2013, 1393
60. ↑ BVerfG , NJOZ 2012, 996 ; BGH, NJW-RR 2009, 43 ; OLG Oldenburg , judgment of April 24, 2006, 11 U 8/06 para. 17 ff .; Jäckle, NJW 2016, 977; Georg Mitsching, The titling of excessive legal prosecution costs in the dunning procedure - consumer protection de lege lata and de legeferenda , in: VuR 2015, 48
61. ↑ Wolfgang Jäckle, NJW 2016, 977
62. ↑ OLG Hamm , NJW-RR 2006, 242  (243); NJW 2013, 1393; VuR 2015, 48
63. ↑ BVerfG, WM 2011, 2155 ; VuR 2015, 48
64. ↑ VuR 2016, 60
65. ↑ Articles of Association of the Federal Association of German Debt Collection Companies V. (BDIU). (PDF; 324 kB) In: inkasso.de. BDIU, April 6, 2017, accessed April 18, 2018 . 
66. ↑ BGH, NJW-RR 2001, 1420  (1421); NJW 2013, 1393
67. ^ NJW 2013, 1393; NJW 2016, 3332
68. ↑ Federal Council : BR-Dr 219/13. (PDF; 696 kB) Rationale. In: dipbt.bundestag.de. DIP , March 22, 2013, p. 10 f. , accessed March 23, 2017 . 
69. ↑ OLG Celle , NStZ-RR 2012, 111 ; NJW 2013. 1393
70. ↑ BT-Drs. 16/3655 of November 30, 2006, draft of a law for the new regulation of legal advice , p. 72
71. ^ VG Cologne, decision of February 7, 2014, Az .: 1 L 1262/13
72. ^ VG Cologne, decision of June 6, 2013, Az. 1 K 129/13
73. ^ VG Cologne, decision of February 7, 2014, Az .: 1 L 1262/13
74. ^ OVG Münster, decision of April 10, 2014, Az .: 4 B 184/14
75. ^ Lutz Michalski, Inadmissibility of debt collection by group-bound debt collection companies , in: ZIP 1994, 1501; Wolfgang Jäckle, Reimbursement of Collection Costs , in: NJW 1995, 2767, 2768
76. ^ Otto Palandt / Christian Grüneberg: BGB comment . 72nd edition. 2013, § 249 marginal no. 59 .
77. ↑ BGH, NJW 1976, 1256  1258
78. ^ AG Dortmund , August 8, 2012, 425 C 6285/12
79. ↑ NJW-RR 1994, 1139, 1141; BT-Dr 16/3655. (PDF; 1.24 MB) Rationale. In: bundestag.de. DIP, November 30, 2006, p. 50 f. , accessed March 23, 2017 . 
80. ^ NJW 2013, 1393; VuR 2016, 60
81. ↑ VuR 2015, 48 m. w. Nachw.
82. ↑ BDIU: Fact check: consumer tip at ZDF-WiSo. July 16, 2019. Retrieved July 17, 2019.
83. ↑ VuR 2016, 60 m. w. Nachw.
84. ^ NJW 2016, 3332
85. ^ NJW 2013, 1393; NJW 2016, 977
86. ^ NJW 2016, 977
87. ^ Otto Palandt / Christian Grüneberg: BGB comment . 75th edition. 2016, § 286 Rn. 46 .
88. ↑ VuR 2016, 60 m. w. Nachw.
89. ^ NJW 2016, 3332
90. ↑ BGH, NJW 2011, 296
91. ^ AG Dortmund, judgment of August 8, 2012, Az .: 425 C 6285/12
92. ↑ VuR 2016, 60
93. ↑ BGH, NJW 2015, 3793 ; NJW 2016, 977
94. ^ NJW 2016, 3332 m. w. Nachw.
95. ↑ Oetker: MüKo -BGB . 7th edition. 2016, § 254 Rn. 93 and § 249 marginal no. 180, 182 . ; NJW 2016, 3332
96. ^ Schulz: MüKo-ZPO . 4th edition. 2013, para. 18 before §§ 91 ff . ; VuR 2016, 60
97. ^ AGH  NRW, January 7, 2011, 2 AGH 48/10 ; VuR 2016, 60
98. ↑ VuR 2016, 60
99. ^ NJW 2013, 1393
100. ^ NJW 2013, 1393
101. ↑ BGH, NJW 2011, 296 ; NJW 2013, 1393
102. ^ Ernst: MüKo-BGB . 7th edition. 2012, § 249 marginal no. 181 f .
103. ^ NJW 2013, 1393
104. ↑ Cora Stahrenberg: Effectiveness of external debt collection: A contribution to the outsourcing of business functions (=  business research results . Volume 104 ). 1st edition. Duncker & Humblot , Berlin 1995, ISBN 978-3-428-08239-1 , pp. 198 . ; NJW 2013, 1393
105. ^ NJW 2013, 1393
106. ^ NJW 2013, 1393 m. w. Nachw.
107. ↑ BGH, BeckRS 2011, 24089 ; NJW 2013, 1393
108. ^ NJW 2013, 1393
109. ^ NJW 2013, 1393
110. ↑ VuR 2016, 60
111. ↑ VuR 2016, 60
112. ↑ VuR 2016, 60
113. ^ NJW 2016, 3332
114. ^ NJW 2016, 3332
115. ^ NJW 2013, 1393
116. ^ AG Neuruppin , judgment of November 19, 2010, 42 C 24/10 ; AG Meldorf , judgment of February 7, 2011, 81 C 1441/10 ; NJW 2013, 1393
117. ↑ OLG Stuttgart , judgment of December 8, 2009, 6 U 99/09 ; AG Bremen , judgment of 7 January 2011, 2 C 355/10 ; NJW 2013, 1393
118. ^ NJW 2016, 977
119. ^ Mayer: RVG . Ed .: Gerold / Schmidt. 22nd edition. 2015 (No. 2301 VV-RVG Rn. 4).
120. ^ NJW 2016, 977
121. ↑ Enders: RVG for beginners . 16th edition. 2013 (No. 654).
122. ^ NJW 2016, 977 m. w. Nachw.
123. ^ NJW 2016, 977
124. ^ NJW 2016, 977
125. ^ NJW 2016, 977 m. w. Nachw.
126. ↑ BGH, NJW 2015, 3508
127. ^ NJW 2016, 977
128. ↑ NJW 2016, 977; VuR 2015, 48
129. ^ NJW 2013, 1393
130. ^ NJW 2016, 977
131. ↑ Krenzler / Hübner: Hand Commentary . (Section 4 EGRDG marginal number 210). ; VuR 2015, 48
132. ^ NJW 2013, 1393
133. ↑ BGH NJW 1981, 1210; NJW 1994, 1472; LAG Düsseldorf MDR 1995, 612; LAG Frankfurt / Main NJW-RR 1996, 10
134. ↑ See BAG, WM 1968, 1047, 1049; BSGE 76, 184, 189 f .; LAG Frankfurt, DB 1988, 612; Schreiber in Soergel, Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch with introductory law and subsidiary laws, commentary , 13th edition 1999 ff., § 410 BGB marg. 1.
135. ^ Selling credit. Statement by Karl-Joachim Schmelz (PDF; 252 kB)
136. ^ BGH judgment of February 27, 2007 Az. XI ZR 195/05.
137. ↑ Klaus Ulsenheimer : doctor Criminal Law in practice . 5th edition. Marg. 887 .
138. ↑ NJOZ 2015, 1593 (1594 f.)
139. ↑ BGH, judgment of May 20, 1992, VIII ZR 240/91 ; NJW 1992, 2348
140. ↑ BGHZ 115, 123
141. ^ Theodor Lenckner , Jörg Eisele : StGB . Ed .: Adolf Schönke , Horst Schröder . 29th edition. Section 203 marginal no. 3 .
142. ↑ OLG Cologne , judgment of July 4, 2000, pp 254/00 - 145 ; NJW 2000, 3656
143. ^ Theodor Lenckner, Jörg Eisele: StGB . Ed .: Adolf Schönke, Horst Schröder. 29th edition. Section 203 marginal no. 30 .
144. ↑ <NJOZ 2015, 1593 (1594 f.)
145. ↑ BGH, judgment of May 20, 1992, VIII ZR 240/91 ; NJW 1992, 2348, 2350
146. ↑ NJOZ 2015, 1593, 1594 f.
147. ↑ NJOZ 2015, 1593, 1594 f.
148. ↑ VuR 2015, 337, 379 f.)
149. ↑ BVerfG, decision of January 14, 2005, 2 BvR 488/04
150. ↑ OLG Saarbrücken , judgment of November 2, 2011, 5 U 187-11 / 36 ; OLG Düsseldorf , judgment of May 11, 2005, 15 U 196/04 ; OLG Hamm, judgment of March 17, 1989, 11 W 106/88
151. ↑ OLG Frankfurt a. M. , judgment of June 18, 2008, 23 U 221/07 ; LG Berlin , judgment of April 27, 2011, 4 O 97/11
152. ↑ VuR 2015, 337, 379 f.
153. ↑ KG , judgment of 10 June 2015, 26 U 20/14
154. ↑ VuR 2015, 337, 379 f.

1. ↑ 10 touchstones: This is how reputable debt collection companies work. (No longer available online.) In: inkasso.de. BDIU, 2011, archived from the original on March 10, 2015 ; Retrieved November 18, 2016 .  
2. ^ BFIF website: Complaints Management . Retrieved October 31, 2013.
3. ↑ Evaluations of consumer complaints about payment requests from debt collection agencies. (PDF; 985 kB) In: vzbv.de. vzbv , December 1, 2011, accessed on November 18, 2016 (as of 2014).  
4. ↑ Federal Association of Consumer Organizations: Evaluation of the results of the collection campaign by the consumer organizations in figures , December 1, 2011, 5 pages. Retrieved November 20, 2013 (PDF file; 170 KB).
5. ↑ Federal Association of Consumer Organizations: Top 10 debt collection companies by number of cases , December 1, 2011, 1 page. Retrieved November 20, 2013 (PDF file; 43 KB).
6. ↑ Thomas Wedel: Reimbursement of Collection Costs, Legal Tribune Online, September 29, 2010. Accessed December 19, 2013.
7. ↑ Holger Franck: Within narrow limits - clear legal rules apply to debt collectors. Coercion and coercion are not permitted. In: World special edition receivables management , October 23, 2013. SI
8. ↑ Stern article from 2007: When the Russian scam is exposed. ( Memento of January 31, 2010 in the Internet Archive ) Retrieved October 28, 2013.

Please note the information on legal issues!