Credit despite debt collection



Credit despite debt collectioncan lead to the rejection of a loan application despite a stable income. An excerpt from the debt collection register and a certified copy of an identity card. Can I get a loan despite open debt collection? Loan application despite debt collection quiz snow-white hair (saw missing) create confidence.

Service and Support

Service and Support

With the collection information one reaches on simple and cost-effective way to meaningful information over the creditworthiness risk of a contract. Regardless of whether you provide services for a client on order or delivery of goods on credit, it is always advisable to inform yourself before concluding a contract on business …. in the collection register. Anyone who takes out a bank loan, rents a holiday home, goes on a national or is looking for work, also needs debt collection information.

Information about a third party A current area of ​​interest must be made credible. Suitable evidence of interest is eg contracts, orders, inquiries, discounts, sales, order confirmations, invoices, reminders and the like. You can do this by sending a copy to the collection agency. This information is provided only in written form. However, this requires a written request and a copy of the identity card must be presented to the collection agency.

The excerpt from the debt collection register contains a list of all in the debtor district under past five registered actions years ago. It also shows the number of seizure debtors issued at the issuing debtor office, non-statutory, registered loss certificates and not yet repaid loss certificates. Fees for enforcement information The fee for written debt collection information is Fr. 17.00. For a subsequent delivery in addition, the postage is calculated.

If several templates (eg for apartment applications) are desired from a collection information, then each writing fee copy of $ 8.00 is to be paid.

Unjustified debt collection

Unjustified debt collection

In the credit check, for example, when looking for a flat or job search, the Breiberregister extract can be used again and again, so that unjustified fraud can cause massive damage to the creditworthiness or reputation of a person. The mere request of a (supposed) creditor to initiate collection is sufficient, and the office responsible for the collection delivers the payment order to the (supposed) borrower.

Even if this bill raises an objection to the debt, the claim remains in the register. However, it only records whether the receivables are still open and in which section of the collection procedure you are currently staying. Therefore, it is not possible to determine whether the collection was wrongly, as a nuisance, begun to interrupt the statute of limitations or justified.

Regardless of this – known – diminished significance of the collection register, the Federal Court has attributed to him a “significant importance”, since it can be assumed that it is used without reason only in a negligible number of cases. But what can you do now to get your collection register extract “clean” again? Of course, the easiest and cheapest way is to reach an agreement with the lender and to collect the debt in written form to the collection agency for termination.

Collection of the debt alone

Collection of the debt alone

Often it is advisable with the contract in question, if it determines that the operating level has the right to demand the termination itself. If the parties can not agree, the wrongly operating company can only act legally, which is time consuming and costly. In the case of a negative declaration (eg a sample letter, which can be downloaded here) at the Collection Agency, the arbitrator will decide in a rush that the claim does not exist or no longer exists.

If the (“alleged”) payer can immediately determine that there are no reasonable complaints, the arbitrator suspends collection. If, in the ensuing litigation, it is established that the claim is not genuinely present, the arbitrator suspends the recovery and, on request, the entry in the register is canceled. The negative declaratory claim can not be filed at any time, despite contrary drafting of the law, but in the opinion of the Federal Court of Justice only if the debtor decides in the opening proceedings on the debtor’s claim or if the debtor has made no appeal at all.

However, the Federal Court of Justice has stated in a recent ruling that the collection of the debt alone, irrespective of the amount claimed, establishes the interest of the creditor in the legal protection, ie the pursued creditor is entitled to initiate a judicial prosecution). This gives the debtor a difficult question after receiving the order for payment: should he propose or waive the order for payment in order to file an immediate and dismissive claim for annulment, with the risk that he will be almost completely defenseless in the event of a failure in the subsequent recovery proceedings against him?

However, if he has a legal remedy and the harassing creditor does not proceed with the litigation with the opening of the law, the borrower remains suspended and has no or limited procedural power to bring it about. In summary, it can be said that the unauthorized debtor is well advised not to submit a legislative proposal (10-day deadline) at the time of delivery of the order for payment, but to examine the entire matter carefully and seek legal advice if necessary.

In principle, the debtor is also entitled to bring an action for annulment under a normal (or simplified) procedure, which in reality hardly applies, since the unauthorized company no longer has any claim under the proposed law. In the credit check, for example, when looking for a flat or job search, the Breiberregister extract can be used again and again, so that unjustified fraud can cause massive damage to the creditworthiness or reputation of a person.

The mere request of a (supposed) creditor to initiate collection is sufficient, and the office responsible for the collection delivers the payment order to the (supposed) borrower. Even if this bill raises an objection to the debt, the claim remains in the register. However, it only records whether the receivables are still open and in which section of the collection procedure you are currently staying.

Therefore, it is not possible to determine whether the collection was wrongly, as a nuisance, begun to interrupt the statute of limitations or justified. Regardless of this – known – diminished significance of the collection register, the Federal Court has attributed to him a “significant importance”, since it can be assumed that it is used without reason only in a negligible number of cases.

But what can you do now to get your collection register extract “clean” again? Of course, the easiest and cheapest way is to reach an agreement with the lender and to collect the debt in written form to the collection agency for termination. Often it is advisable with the contract in question, if it determines that the operating level has the right to demand the termination itself.

If the parties can not agree, the wrongly operating company can only act legally, which is time consuming and costly. In the case of a negative declaration (eg a sample letter, which can be downloaded here) at the Collection Agency, the arbitrator will decide in a rush that the claim does not exist or no longer exists.

If the (“alleged”) payer can immediately determine that there are no reasonable complaints, the arbitrator suspends collection. If, in the ensuing litigation, it is established that the claim is not genuinely present, the arbitrator suspends the recovery and, on request, the entry in the register is canceled. The negative declaratory claim can not be filed at any time, despite contrary drafting of the law, but in the opinion of the Federal Court of Justice only if the debtor decides in the opening proceedings on the debtor’s claim or if the debtor has made no appeal at all.

However, the Federal Court of Justice has stated in a recent ruling that the collection of the debt alone, irrespective of the amount claimed, establishes the interest of the creditor in the legal protection, ie the pursued creditor is entitled to initiate a judicial prosecution). This gives the debtor a difficult question after receiving the order for payment: should he propose or waive the order for payment in order to file an immediate and dismissive claim for annulment, with the risk that he will be almost completely defenseless in the event of a failure in the subsequent recovery proceedings against him?

However, if he has a legal remedy and the harassing creditor does not proceed with the litigation with the opening of the law, the borrower remains suspended and has no or limited procedural power to bring it about. In summary, it can be said that the unauthorized debtor is well advised not to submit a legislative proposal (10-day deadline) at the time of delivery of the order for payment, but to examine the entire matter carefully and, if necessary, to seek legal assistance.

In principle, the debtor is also entitled to bring an action for annulment under a normal (or simplified) procedure, which in reality hardly applies, as the unjustified undertaking is no longer entitled to it under the proposed law.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *