{"product_id":"vragen-43158-waar-in-de-wet-staat-dat-je-incassokosten-en-deurwaarders-kosten-moet-betalen-voor-een-beweerdelijke","title":"Disputing collection costs and health insurance law","description":"\u003ch4\u003e Questioner\u003c\/h4\u003e\n\n Where in the law does it say that you have to pay collection costs and bailiff costs for an alleged payment arrears for the general health insurance deductible?\n What is the attorney's area of ​​expertise for the aforementioned issue?\n\n\u003ch4\u003e Lawyer\u003c\/h4\u003e\n\n Article 6:96 BW contains the legal obligation to compensate for financial loss. This falls within civil law.\n\n\u003ch4\u003e Questioner\u003c\/h4\u003e\n\n Thank you for your response.\n \nWhere in the law are there weighty reasons for not paying collection costs, because these collection costs are unjustified? For example, because it was immediately stated that an alleged outstanding claim was not wanted\/will not be paid because the aforementioned claim was immediately disputed. He who claims (health insurer) must prove, as referred to in the Code of Civil Procedure, on the other hand there is a disproportionate reverse burden of proof.\n\n Is the specialization of a lawyer\/attorney for the aforementioned problem the law of obligations and the health insurance law or other?\n\n\u003ch4\u003e Lawyer\u003c\/h4\u003e\n\n The law does not provide any weighty reasons for not paying collection costs. Facts and circumstances should show that you do not have to pay them. In my opinion, this certainly includes the prior indication that you will not pay because you dispute the claim. The collection costs were therefore unnecessarily incurred and are an unreasonable increase in costs, or at least that is what I would argue in court.\n \nDisputing collection costs on the aforementioned grounds is quite general, no specialization is required. If the issue concerns the content of care and\/or the health insurance act, it is useful to have someone who is familiar with that.\n\n\u003ch4\u003e Questioner\u003c\/h4\u003e\n\n Thank you for your response.\n\n Which (fixed) (Supreme Court) case law is on the non-payment of collection costs, because these collection costs are unjustified. For example, because it was immediately indicated that an alleged outstanding claim would not be paid because the aforementioned claim was immediately disputed.\n\n\u003ch4\u003e Lawyer\u003c\/h4\u003e\n\n I do not have such case law at hand, but you can search the available case law by keyword at www.uitspraken.nl.\n\n","brand":"Rechtswinkel.nl","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":55017723363677,"sku":"","price":0.0,"currency_code":"EUR","in_stock":true}],"url":"https:\/\/www.rechtswinkel.nl\/en\/products\/vragen-43158-waar-in-de-wet-staat-dat-je-incassokosten-en-deurwaarders-kosten-moet-betalen-voor-een-beweerdelijke","provider":"Rechtswinkel.nl","version":"1.0","type":"link"}