Ina Ree­se Tax & Legal Prac­ti­ce – Flens­burg | Harrislee

Debt recovery by a solicitor or a debt collection agency

Both debt coll­ec­tion agen­ci­es and soli­ci­tors’ firms are aut­ho­ri­sed to reco­ver claims, and in prin­ci­ple they cost the deb­tor the same. The dif­fe­ren­ces lie else­whe­re: in the cos­ts incur­red by the cre­di­tor, in the repre­sen­ta­ti­on pro­vi­ded fol­lo­wing an objec­tion, and in the tax tre­at­ment. We explain which approach is best sui­ted to which type of claim. 
Debt recovery by a solicitor or a debt collection agency: which is best for your claim?

Debt recovery by a solicitor or a debt collection agency

Debt reco­very by a soli­ci­tor or a debt coll­ec­tion agen­cy: which is best for your claim?

The invoice has been over­due for weeks, and the remin­der has gone unans­we­red. Now, at the very latest, the ques­ti­on ari­ses as to who will pur­sue the cla­im. The opti­ons are a debt coll­ec­tion agen­cy and a law firm. Both cla­im to reco­ver out­stan­ding invoices quick­ly and cost-effec­tively for the cre­di­tor, and both are right – just not for every claim.

The cos­ts that the deb­tor must reim­bur­se are sub­ject to the same upper limit in both cases, and the 2021 debt coll­ec­tion reform has fur­ther redu­ced this limit for undis­pu­ted claims. Anyo­ne who bases their choice sole­ly on pri­ce the­r­e­fo­re over­looks the actu­al dif­fe­ren­ces. We explain what debt coll­ec­tion agen­ci­es and law firms are per­mit­ted to do, who bears which cos­ts, what hap­pens if the deb­tor lodges an objec­tion, and what tax issues ari­se in con­nec­tion with debt coll­ec­tion and the sale of claims. The artic­le con­cludes with prac­ti­cal gui­dance to aid decision-making.

Who is authorised to collect debts?

Debt collection agencies

Anyo­ne who coll­ects third-par­ty claims as part of their own busi­ness must be regis­tered in accordance with the Legal Ser­vices Act (Sec­tion 10(1), first sen­tence, No. 1 RDG). The requi­re­ments include, among­st other things, pro­fes­sio­nal com­pe­tence, per­so­nal inte­gri­ty and pro­fes­sio­nal indem­ni­ty insu­rance. Sin­ce 2021, debt coll­ec­tion ser­vices have expli­cit­ly included legal scru­ti­ny and advice rela­ting to the reco­very of the debt (Sec­tion 2(2) of the Legal Ser­vices Act). A debt coll­ec­tion agen­cy may the­r­e­fo­re veri­fy whe­ther the cla­im is valid and advi­se the cre­di­tor on this mat­ter, inso­far as it rela­tes to the reco­very of the debt.

Super­vi­si­on of debt coll­ec­tion agen­ci­es used to be the respon­si­bi­li­ty of the fede­ral sta­tes, spread across more than 30 courts. Sin­ce 1 Janu­ary 2025, this respon­si­bi­li­ty has been cen­tra­li­sed at the Fede­ral Office of Jus­ti­ce. You can check whe­ther a com­pa­ny is regis­tered in the public regis­ter of legal services.

Law firms

Soli­ci­tors are per­mit­ted to coll­ect debts wit­hout the need for sepa­ra­te regis­tra­ti­on. They are sub­ject to the super­vi­si­on of their bar asso­cia­ti­on and are also requi­red to hold pro­fes­sio­nal indem­ni­ty insu­rance. Unli­ke a debt coll­ec­tion agen­cy, a law firm is not limi­t­ed to debt reco­very. It also advi­ses on the under­ly­ing con­tract, any coun­ter-claims by the deb­tor and legal pro­cee­dings, and repres­ents the cre­di­tor in court.

The same obligations towards private individuals

Whe­re debt coll­ec­tion agen­ci­es or soli­ci­tors pur­sue a cla­im against a pri­va­te indi­vi­du­al, the same dis­clo­sure requi­re­ments app­ly to both (Sec­tion 13a of the Ger­man Debt Coll­ec­tion Act (RDG), Sec­tion 43d of the Ger­man Soli­ci­tors’ Act (BRAO)). Even the first let­ter must spe­ci­fy, among­st other things, the cli­ent, the basis of the cla­im, a cal­cu­la­ti­on of inte­rest whe­re inte­rest is clai­med, and the debt coll­ec­tion cos­ts, inclu­ding their type, amount and basis. Befo­re agre­e­ing to a defer­ral or inst­al­ment plan, the cos­ts ari­sing the­r­e­f­rom must be poin­ted out; befo­re an ack­now­led­ge­ment of debt, the deb­tor must be infor­med of the defen­ces and objec­tions which they will gene­ral­ly for­feit as a result. The­se obli­ga­ti­ons do not app­ly to businesses.

What the debtor must repay

If the deb­tor is in default, they must reim­bur­se the cos­ts of legal pro­cee­dings as dama­ges for default. This appli­es to debt coll­ec­tion agen­ci­es as well as to law firms. The fixed late pay­ment char­ge of 40 euros, which the cre­di­tor may cla­im from deb­tors who are not con­su­mers, is set off against the­se cos­ts (Sec­tion 288(5) of the Ger­man Civil Code (BGB)).

The amount is sub­ject to the same limit for both methods. Debt coll­ec­tion cos­ts are reco­vera­ble only up to the amount that a soli­ci­tor could char­ge for the same work under the Soli­ci­tors’ Fees Act (Sec­tion 13e RDG). Sin­ce Octo­ber 2021, lower rates have appli­ed to undis­pu­ted claims. A busi­ness fee of more than 0.9 is then only per­mis­si­ble in par­ti­cu­lar­ly exten­si­ve or dif­fi­cult cases. In straight­for­ward cases, for exam­p­le whe­re the deb­tor pays in respon­se to the first demand for pay­ment, the fee is cap­ped at 0.5 (No. 2300 VV RVG). If an inst­al­ment pay­ment agree­ment is rea­ched, a redu­ced sett­le­ment fee of 0.7 may also app­ly, cal­cu­la­ted on the basis of half the cla­im (Sec­tion 31b of the RVG).

It fol­lows that: for out-of-court pro­cee­dings, the deb­tor must reim­bur­se the debt coll­ec­tion agen­cy no more than they would have to pay a solicitor’s prac­ti­ce. If both act in suc­ces­si­on, the deb­tor is gene­ral­ly not requi­red to bear dou­ble the cos­ts. Reim­bur­se­ment is limi­t­ed to the cos­ts that would have been incur­red had the soli­ci­tor been enga­ged alo­ne (Sec­tion 13f of the Ger­man Debt Coll­ec­tion Act (RDG)). This does not app­ly if the deb­tor only dis­pu­tes the cla­im after the debt coll­ec­tion agen­cy has been enga­ged, and the cre­di­tor the­r­e­fo­re ins­tructs a solicitor.

What the creditor bears themselves

The dif­fe­ren­ces only beco­me appa­rent when the­re is not­hing to be reco­ver­ed from the deb­tor. In that case, the cos­ts are bor­ne by the cre­di­tor, unless other­wi­se agreed.

At the debt coll­ec­tion agen­cy Per­for­mance-based models are com­mon: the cre­di­tor pays only a com­mis­si­on on amounts reco­ver­ed; in the event of fail­ure, they pay not­hing or a flat fee. Some pro­vi­ders ope­ra­te on the basis of mem­ber­ship fees or flat-rate fees per case. How much the cre­di­tor actual­ly recei­ves in the end is set out in the con­tract, not in the adver­ti­sing leaf­let. It is worth pay­ing clo­se atten­ti­on to com­mis­si­ons, expen­ses and the off­set­ting of pay­ments made by the deb­tor in the contract.

At the law firm As a gene­ral rule, remu­ne­ra­ti­on is gover­ned by the Lawy­ers„ Fees Act. Sin­ce Octo­ber 2021, lawy­ers have also been per­mit­ted to agree on a suc­cess fee for debt coll­ec­tion acti­vi­ties (Sec­tion 4a(1) of the Lawy­ers“ Fees Act). This appli­es to claims up to 2,000 euros and, regard­less of the amount, to out-of-court debt reco­very, court-orde­red pay­ment pro­cee­dings and the enforce­ment of claims against mova­ble assets. Con­tin­gen­cy fees are excluded for claims that are exempt from attach­ment. The ‘suc­cess-only’ argu­ment is the­r­e­fo­re no lon­ger a uni­que sel­ling point of debt coll­ec­tion agencies.

Sale of receiv­a­bles: Some debt coll­ec­tion agen­ci­es also buy debts. The cre­di­tor recei­ves money imme­dia­te­ly and is reli­e­ved of the risk of default, but sells the debt at a pri­ce well below its face value. In the case of debts whe­re pay­ment is in arre­ars, the dis­count is often sub­stan­ti­al. We explain below what this means in terms of VAT.

The key difference: the contradiction

Debt coll­ec­tion agen­ci­es are not limi­t­ed to repre­sen­ting cre­di­tors out of court. They may also app­ly for a pay­ment order, con­duct the pay­ment order pro­cee­dings up to the point of refer­ral to the court of first ins­tance, and enforce mone­ta­ry claims against the debtor’s mova­ble assets, for exam­p­le by atta­ching bank accounts or sei­zing pro­per­ty (Sec­tion 79(2), second sen­tence, No. 4 of the Code of Civil Pro­ce­du­re (ZPO)). Excluded from this are all actions that initia­te con­ten­tious pro­cee­dings or are to be car­ri­ed out in the cour­se of such proceedings.

If the deb­tor lodges an objec­tion to the order for pay­ment, the debt coll­ec­tion agen­cy may neither app­ly for pro­cee­dings on the merits nor repre­sent the cre­di­tor in such pro­cee­dings. An exam­p­le: A joi­n­ery firm from Flens­burg has sup­pli­ed a fit­ted kit­chen; the invoice for 6,800 euros remains out­stan­ding. The debt coll­ec­tion agen­cy appli­es for a pay­ment order; the cus­to­mer objects, citing defects in the cabi­net fronts. For the con­ten­tious pro­cee­dings befo­re the magis­tra­tes’ court, the busi­ness must now eit­her repre­sent its­elf or ins­truct a law firm. The law firm must fami­lia­ri­se its­elf with the case, review the con­tract, the han­do­ver and the com­plaints regar­ding defects, and sub­stan­tia­te the cla­im. By that point, seve­ral weeks have often passed.

For claims whe­re objec­tions are fore­seeable, the direct rou­te to the soli­ci­tors’ office is the­r­e­fo­re usual­ly the quicker opti­on. If the cus­to­mer has alre­a­dy rai­sed a com­plaint about defects or con­tes­ted the invoice pri­or to the debt coll­ec­tion pro­cee­dings, an objec­tion is almost cer­tain. In such cases, it may even make more sen­se to bring an imme­dia­te legal action rather than app­ly for a debt order. We explain when a pay­ment order is nevert­hel­ess important – for exam­p­le, to sus­pend the limi­ta­ti­on peri­od at the end of the year – in our artic­le on Limi­ta­ti­on peri­od at the end of the year.

When it might be worth using a debt collection agency

Debt coll­ec­tion agen­ci­es are geared towards high-volu­me busi­ness. Their strengths lie in pro­ces­sing lar­ge num­bers of simi­lar claims accor­ding to a fixed procedure:

  • Many small, undis­pu­ted claims, such as sub­scrip­ti­ons, mem­ber­ships or online shop­ping, whe­re the­re are rare­ly any dis­pu­tes about the ser­vice provided.
  • Auto­ma­ted pro­ces­ses: Inter­faces with accoun­ting sys­tems, address veri­fi­ca­ti­on and cre­dit­wort­hi­ness data enable lar­ge volu­mes of cases to be pro­ces­sed efficiently.
  • Long-term moni­to­ring of secu­red claims: In the case of deb­tors who curr­ent­ly have no assets, some cre­di­tors moni­tor them over a peri­od of years to see whe­ther their finan­cial situa­ti­on improves.
  • Debt purcha­se, if imme­dia­te liqui­di­ty is more important than recei­ving the full amount.

Befo­re enga­ging a debt coll­ec­tion agen­cy, you should check its ent­ry in the Regis­ter of Legal Ser­vices and read the con­tract careful­ly. When deal­ing with pri­va­te indi­vi­du­als, a debt coll­ec­tion agen­cy must sta­te the name of its super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty and pro­vi­de a break­down of its cos­ts. If this infor­ma­ti­on is miss­ing from the stan­dard let­ters, you should exer­cise caution.

When the journey to the law firm is shorter

A law firm is gene­ral­ly the bet­ter choice when it comes to indi­vi­du­al claims whe­re the case requi­res more than a stan­dard procedure:

  • Objec­tions are to be expec­ted, for exam­p­le, due to alle­ged defects, a set-off against coun­ter-claims or a dis­pu­te regar­ding the scope of services.
  • Lar­ger sums in busi­ness tran­sac­tions, whe­re it is worth car­ry­ing out a tho­rough review of the con­tract, the terms and con­di­ti­ons, and safe­guards such as reten­ti­on of title.
  • The busi­ness rela­ti­onship is to con­ti­nue. A per­so­na­li­sed let­ter from a soli­ci­tor – pos­si­bly inclu­ding a sett­le­ment pro­po­sal – is often recei­ved dif­fer­ent­ly by busi­ness cli­ents than a stan­dar­di­sed debt coll­ec­tion letter.
  • The limi­ta­ti­on peri­od is about to expi­re. A decis­i­on must then be made quick­ly as to whe­ther a pay­ment order or legal action is the right cour­se of action.
  • Legal and tax issues are inter­lin­ked, for exam­p­le, in the case of a VAT adjus­t­ment or a wri­te-down in the annu­al accounts.

The main advan­ta­ge is that a law firm can hand­le the case from the initi­al demand for pay­ment right through to the jud­ge­ment and enforce­ment, wit­hout any chan­ge of lawy­er and wit­hout the need for the lawy­er to fami­lia­ri­se them­sel­ves with the case twice.

Tax considerations

VAT on debt collection and legal fees

Debt coll­ec­tion agen­ci­es and law firms gene­ral­ly invoice their fees inclu­si­ve of VAT. Whe­ther the deb­tor is requi­red to reim­bur­se this VAT depends on the cre­di­tor. If the cre­di­tor is entit­led to deduct input VAT, the VAT does not repre­sent an eco­no­mic bur­den on them. They may the­r­e­fo­re only demand the net cos­ts from the deb­tor. Anyo­ne who nevert­hel­ess includes VAT in a cla­im against a pri­va­te indi­vi­du­al must express­ly sta­te that the cli­ent can­not deduct it as input VAT. This appli­es equal­ly to debt coll­ec­tion agen­ci­es and soli­ci­tors (Sec­tion 13a(1)(6) of the Ger­man Regu­la­ti­on of Legal Ser­vices Act (RDG), Sec­tion 43d(1)(6) of the Ger­man Soli­ci­tors’ Act (BRAO)). Small busi­ness owners and other cre­di­tors who are not entit­led to deduct input VAT may cla­im the gross costs.

Costs and reimbursements in the calculation of profit

Debt coll­ec­tion com­mis­si­ons, soli­ci­tors’ fees and court cos­ts rela­ting to trade receiv­a­bles are busi­ness expen­ses. If the deb­tor sub­se­quent­ly reim­bur­ses the­se cos­ts, the reim­bur­se­ments con­sti­tu­te busi­ness inco­me. This appli­es regard­less of whe­ther a debt coll­ec­tion agen­cy or a law firm was involved.

Sale of receivables: VAT is not based on the purchase price

Anyo­ne who sells a debt to a debt coll­ec­tion agen­cy for less than its face value can­not sim­ply adjust the VAT on the basis of the purcha­se pri­ce. In the view of the tax aut­ho­ri­ties, the con­side­ra­ti­on in this case is deter­mi­ned by what the cus­to­mer actual­ly pays, not by the pro­ceeds from the sale (Sec­tion 17.1(6) of the VAT Imple­men­ta­ti­on Regu­la­ti­ons). The sel­ler may only redu­ce their VAT to the ext­ent that they can pro­ve the debt is uncoll­ec­ti­ble. To do so, they must know what the buy­er has reco­ver­ed from the deb­tor. A debt purcha­se agree­ment should the­r­e­fo­re obli­ge the buy­er to dis­c­lo­se the amounts recovered.

The receiva­ble sold is dere­co­g­nis­ed in the balan­ce sheet. The loss ari­sing from the sale redu­ces the pro­fit, alt­hough the VAT por­ti­on must be trea­ted sepa­ra­te­ly in accordance with the rules descri­bed abo­ve. Under the cash-basis accoun­ting method, the purcha­se pri­ce con­sti­tu­tes ope­ra­ting inco­me, as the receiva­ble had not pre­vious­ly been reco­g­nis­ed as income.

Receivables currently being recovered

As long as a cla­im is being hand­led by a debt coll­ec­tion agen­cy or a law firm, it remains on the creditor’s books. Whe­ther it requi­res a wri­te-down as at the balan­ce sheet date, and when VAT may be adjus­ted on the grounds of irre­co­vera­bi­li­ty, depends on the stage of the pro­cee­dings. A docu­men­ted record of the pro­cess, from the dun­ning pro­ce­du­re through to enforce­ment, helps to jus­ti­fy this to the tax office. Fur­ther details can be found in our gui­de Debt manage­ment for small busi­nesses.

Decision-making guide: Debt collection agency or law firm?

Cri­ter­ionMore like a debt coll­ec­tion agen­cyMore of a law firm
Type of claimsMany small claims of a simi­lar natureIndi­vi­du­al claims, lar­ger sums
deb­torRetail cus­to­mers in the mass marketBusi­ness cus­to­mers, regu­lar customers
Risk of disputeCla­im undis­pu­ted, pay­ment uncontestedDefects, set-off or objec­tions foreseeable
Pro­ce­du­reOut-of-court pro­cee­dings, debt coll­ec­tion pro­cee­dings, enforce­ment against mova­ble assetsAddi­tio­nal cla­im and con­ten­tious proceedings
Busi­ness relationshipIt doesn’t real­ly matterTo be retained
Liqui­di­tyRequest to purcha­se receivablesThe full amount is to be recovered
Sup­ple­men­ta­ry questionsNoneCon­tract, terms and con­di­ti­ons, secu­ri­ty, tax

Often, the ans­wer is not a case of ‘either/or’. A com­pa­ny can hand over its small-sca­le claims against pri­va­te cus­to­mers to a debt coll­ec­tion agen­cy and refer dis­pu­ted or lar­ger cases direct­ly to the law firm. It is important to make this decis­i­on at an ear­ly stage so that the same cla­im does not go through two dif­fe­rent bodies.

Legal and tax services under one roof

Civil law deter­mi­nes whe­ther a cla­im is enforceable. Tax law deter­mi­nes what con­sti­tu­tes a default, a sale or a refund of VAT and pro­fit. In many busi­nesses, dif­fe­rent advi­sers are respon­si­ble for the­se matters.

Ina Ree­se is a soli­ci­tor, a spe­cia­list in tax law and a tax advi­ser. In our Cre­dit manage­ment We hand­le the enforce­ment pro­cess from the lawyer’s demand for pay­ment, through the dun­ning pro­ce­du­re, right through to enforce­ment pro­cee­dings, and we also repre­sent you in con­ten­tious pro­cee­dings. We cla­ri­fy the tax impli­ca­ti­ons of bad debts and the sale of receiv­a­bles in our Tax advice. We explain why this con­nec­tion saves time and redu­ces the need for coor­di­na­ti­on in ever­y­day life in the artic­le Tax and legal advice from a sin­gle source.

Frequently asked questions about debt collection

Is debt recovery through a solicitor more expensive than using a debt collection agency?

Not for the deb­tor. The reco­vera­ble debt coll­ec­tion cos­ts are limi­t­ed to the solicitor’s fees, so both approa­ches result in the same maxi­mum amounts. For the cre­di­tor, it depends on the agree­ment. Debt coll­ec­tion agen­ci­es often work on a suc­cess-based fee basis; sin­ce 2021, law firms have also been per­mit­ted to agree on a suc­cess fee for debt coll­ec­tion activities.

Is a debt collection agency allowed to apply for a payment order?

Yes. Debt coll­ec­tion agen­ci­es are per­mit­ted to con­duct the court-based dun­ning pro­ce­du­re up to the stage of refer­ral to the court hea­ring the dis­pu­te, and to enforce the enforce­ment order against the debtor’s mova­ble assets. They are not per­mit­ted to bring legal pro­cee­dings or to repre­sent the cre­di­tor in con­ten­tious proceedings.

Can I still instruct a solicitor after the debt collection agency has been involved?

Yes, at any time. Howe­ver, the deb­tor is not, in prin­ci­ple, requi­red to reim­bur­se the addi­tio­nal cos­ts incur­red as a result of the chan­ge. They are only lia­ble for the cos­ts that would have been incur­red had the soli­ci­tor been ins­truc­ted direct­ly. The situa­ti­on is dif­fe­rent if the deb­tor only dis­pu­ted the cla­im after the debt coll­ec­tion agen­cy had been instructed.

How can I tell if a debt collection agency is reputable?

An ent­ry in the Regis­ter of Legal Ser­vices, a com­pre­hen­si­ble con­tract set­ting out clear details of fees and expen­ses, and cor­re­spon­dence con­tai­ning the sta­tu­to­ry man­da­to­ry infor­ma­ti­on. This includes, in dealings with pri­va­te indi­vi­du­als, the name of the com­pe­tent super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ty, which has been the Fede­ral Office of Jus­ti­ce sin­ce 2025.

In summary

  • Debt coll­ec­tion agen­ci­es must be regis­tered under the RDG and, sin­ce 2025, have been sub­ject to super­vi­si­on by the Fede­ral Office of Jus­ti­ce. Lawy­ers are per­mit­ted to coll­ect debts wit­hout being registered.
  • Debt coll­ec­tion cos­ts are only reco­vera­ble up to the amount of the solicitor’s fees. For the deb­tor, the­r­e­fo­re, the debt coll­ec­tion agen­cy is no more expen­si­ve than the law firm. Cos­ts incur­red twice as a result of a chan­ge of agen­cy are, in prin­ci­ple, not recoverable.
  • Both offer suc­cess-based fees. Sin­ce 2021, law firms have been per­mit­ted to agree such fees for debt reco­very services.
  • Once an objec­tion has been lodged against the order for pay­ment, the debt coll­ec­tion agen­cy is not per­mit­ted to repre­sent the cre­di­tor in the sub­se­quent pro­cee­dings. Whe­re objec­tions are fore­seeable, it is the­r­e­fo­re usual­ly quicker to go through a solicitor’s firm.
  • Debt coll­ec­tion agen­ci­es real­ly come into their own when deal­ing with lar­ge num­bers of small, uncon­tes­ted claims and when purcha­sing debts.
  • Cre­di­tors entit­led to deduct input VAT recei­ve only the net cos­ts from the deb­tor. When a debt is sold, the VAT adjus­t­ment is based on the amount actual­ly reco­ver­ed, not on the purcha­se price.

Would you like to know which approach is best for your out­stan­ding debt? During an initi­al con­sul­ta­ti­on las­ting around 15 minu­tes, we’ll assess whe­re you’re at and what steps would be best to take. Get in touch now

Sources

You might also be interested in this