Unfair debt-collection cost clause in a consumer contract struck down in default proceedings
KAV Autoverhuur claims collection costs the court cannot accept
KAV Autoverhuur B.V. issues a writ of summons against a consumer for €31.56 in unpaid hire charges, together with collection costs, interest and legal costs. The consumer does not appear. Even so, the court does not simply award the claim.
The case concerns a hire agreement governed by KAV's general terms and conditions. Those terms contain a debt-collection cost clause (Article 3(4)): in the event of non-payment, collection costs are due of at least 15% of the outstanding amount, or, for amounts below €500, at least €75 (excluding VAT). At first sight a standard clause. But the court sees two problems.
The pre-contractual provision of information does pass muster under Section 6:230l DCC. Articles 3(3) and 6 of the general terms and conditions likewise survive the court's review of its own motion without objection. The debt-collection cost clause does not clear that bar.
The clause lacks a ceiling and circumvents the mandatory reminder
The court finds that the clause is unfair within the meaning of Directive 93/13/EEC on two independent grounds. First, a maximum amount is missing. The Decree on compensation for extrajudicial collection costs imposes a statutory ceiling on collection costs for consumer claims. A clause that does not address that ceiling and in theory allows for higher costs disturbs the balance between the parties to the consumer's detriment.
Second, the clause makes collection costs immediately due upon non-payment. That is not consistent with the law. Collection costs only become due after the debtor has received a reminder allowing a payment period of fourteen days — the so-called fourteen-day letter. A clause that ignores that period is unfair.
The court announces that it will annul the clause and dismiss the collection costs claimed. KAV is given the opportunity to respond by 11 March 2026.
What does this mean for hire businesses and other creditors with consumers among their customers?
This judgment illustrates that courts are not on autopilot when giving default judgments. The court's review of consumer contracts of its own motion is not a formality — it is mandatory under European law. Debt-collection cost clauses that contain no ceiling or that circumvent the fourteen-day letter are annulled. That is so even where the consumer does not appear and therefore never challenges the clause.
For hire businesses, subscription services and other parties that hold consumers contractually liable for collection costs, the lesson is clear: the clause must refer expressly to the statutory maximum and may make costs due only after the reminder period has expired. Reviewing general terms and conditions pays off. See also Prime Law's Consumer Litigation practice and the publications on contractual clauses in consumer law.
Frequently asked questions
Must a court always review the general terms and conditions in default proceedings?
Yes. Under Directive 93/13/EEC and the settled case law of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU), the court is required to review of its own motion whether contract clauses are unfair, even where the consumer does not appear. That applies regardless of whether the consumer itself invokes the unfairness of the clause.
What is the statutory maximum for extrajudicial collection costs for consumers?
The Decree on compensation for extrajudicial collection costs (BIK) sets the maximum compensation on a sliding scale. For a principal sum of up to €2,500, the rate is 15% with a minimum of €40. A contractual clause that fails to cap that maximum or that exceeds it is unfair towards the consumer and is annulled.
When do collection costs become due for consumers?
Only after the debtor has received a written reminder allowing a payment period of fourteen days. This follows from Section 6:96(6) DCC. A clause that makes costs due immediately upon non-payment — without that reminder obligation — is contrary to the law and unfair within the meaning of Directive 93/13.
ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2026:1661, District Court of Noord-Holland, 11 February 2026
Cited case law
District Courts: ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2026:1661