Received a summons? Discover your rights!

Questioner

A year ago I moved and sent the companies I do business with a letter of relocation, unfortunately by post not by email. It seems that the relocation to 1 company was not received or processed. Now I receive a summons from xxxxxx for a lawsuit at my new address, this is the first message I receive about two outstanding invoices totaling 300 euros. After telephone contact, the collection agency states that a '14 day letter' was sent a month ago, unfortunately I never received it. They sent me a pdf today which should show that they have drawn up/sent a letter The claim consists of 3 parts: principal sum 300 euros costs of cadastral research 6.05 euros interest 3.91 collection costs 45 euros VAT collection costs 9.45 total 364.41 and in 2nd account: writ 81 euro DBR 1.64 BRP application 1.57 sales tax 17.68 total 101.89 delivery of summons 60 euros So I am charged 264.41 + 101.89 + 60 = 526.30 Is this allowed?

Lawyer

The answer to your question is yes and no. Initially, you are responsible for reporting a change of address. I do wonder whether the company in question did not also correspond with you by email, because if so, why did they not email you? Then about the costs. They don't seem entirely correct to me. The costs of cadastral investigation don't seem correct to me and VAT on the collection costs is possible, but depends on whether the creditor is liable for VAT. The same applies to the VAT on the costs of the writ. I say in advance that the delivery of the summons 60 euros is nonsense, because that is included in the costs of the writ. Please note, I say this with reservation, because I have not seen the documents. Can you do something with this?

Questioner

I can certainly do something with that, thank you very much. In the meantime I have sent this letter: REGISTERED MAIL AND SENT BY MAIL TO: Dear bbbbbbb On November 12, 2018, a summons was delivered to my home address for a principal sum of 2 outstanding invoices of yyyyyy of 250 and 50 euros, together 300 euros. You also claim 226.30 euros in extrajudicial costs. This is the first time I have seen these invoices and the first contact with BoitenLuhrs about this claim. In the summons I see that almost all underlying documents were addressed to a previous address of mine. Both invoices of yyyyyy were sent to the old address, not to my new address. I have authorized yyyyyy for direct debit, unfortunately it was not used for these 2 invoices. Even when payment was not made, yyyyy did not use the direct debit for these amounts. xxxxxxxx or yyyyyyy did not contact me by email or telephone number. Both have been known to yyyyyyy for at least 10 years I called yyyyyy for clarification, even after asking, my change of address was unfortunately not found. The rest of my contact details, email and phone number are correct in the system. At some point you found out that I lived at hhhhhh in Hilversum, then you should have sent me a fourteen-day letter in accordance with the legal standards, so that I would have had the opportunity to settle amicably. In the summons a so-called 'production 3' has been added. That is the only underlying production with my correct address. Production 3 looks like a print of an internal piece of text, after all your logo and address details, registration details etc. are missing. Perhaps there was the intention to print this on your letterhead and send it as a 14-day letter, but that is not apparent from production 3. I have requested a copy of the fourteen-day letter. On 14-11-2018 you sent me the same pdf as production 3, not a copy of a letter actually printed on your letterhead. After a telephone inquiry today 15-11-2018 your colleague Mrs qqqqqq told me that there are no further documents to be submitted to prove that this text was ever printed on your letterhead, or sent to, or delivered to the hhhhh in Hilversum. The Supreme Court of the Netherlands issued a ruling on 25 November 2006 on the correct drafting and the burden of proof of delivery of the fourteen-day letter, from which I quote: 3.5.2 If the receipt of the fourteen-day letter by the debtor is disputed, a reasonable explanation, tailored to the needs of practice, entails that the creditor must in principle state and, if necessary, prove facts and circumstances from which it follows that the letter was sent by him to an address where he could reasonably assume that the debtor could be reached by him, and that and on what day the letter arrived there (at the latest) (cf. the judgment in Centavos/[C] referred to in 3.4 above). Case law ECLI:NL:HR:2016:2704 - Supreme Court, 25-11-2016 / 16/02885 Perhaps you were under the impression that I still lived in De Bilt, but at some point you discovered that I lived in Hilversum. You then knew that I could not have been aware of the invoices sent by yyyyyy or your correspondence about them. After all, yyyy or xxxxx both failed to use email, telephone, text message services or other means to contact you, while these means were available. At that time, you should have sent a fourteen-day letter in accordance with the legal standards and the receipt theory, so that I could (for the first time) take note of these invoices. That would have given me the opportunity to settle amicably. The fourteen-day letter was probably not printed on your letterhead and was not sent in accordance with the legal regulations. One thing is certain: I did not receive the letter. I have therefore been summoned without due cause and do not accept the extrajudicial costs. I acknowledge the principal sum, which has already been transferred to yyyyyy in consultation and at the request of rrrrrrrrrr I would like to request that you withdraw the case from the subdistrict court, close the file and inform me of this by email. All rights reserved, kind regards and awaiting your reply,