This has led to extreme anxiety for the future. What will happen? Will I ever buy houses and fix stuff for my kids… .This has ruined so much for me.
A woman sums up her feelings as an introduction to the program series ” Debts that do not exist”. SVT PLUS has made a series, which so far consists of two parts (each about 7 minutes), where they examine how scam companies create inventive debts that they then get the state authority Andilars Personal Loan to recover. By hiding behind inventive postal addresses and bullying, companies get away while innocent people have to pay millions – on debts that do not exist.
This is how debt is created
What would you do if you received a payment order from Andilars Personal Loan? Put the heart in the throat pit and directly investigate how the debt arose and dispute it if it was wrong? For most people this is the obvious way to go.
But if you already have large debts and payment orders come as often as unwanted advertising – how do you act? Too many people open the letter, approve the claim and send it back. Or does not open it at all, but puts it aside to be “taken care of later”.
This is what the scam companies know, which is aimed at people who already have large debts. Statistically, chances are that these people will approve the requirement without going to the bottom of where they come from. By approving the claim, it is also approved that the Crown Magistrate may proceed in the process and thus begin to recover the debt. Whether it is a real or invented debt.
What is perhaps most cruel in this situation is that the Swedish system benefits the bluff companies. If you receive a payment order from Andilars Personal Loan on a claimed debt from a company, you must act. It is not enough to throw away the claimed requirement in the trash. If you do not act at all, it is counted as a concession.
If a company contacts Andilars Personal Loan, a case is created and a payment order is sent out. This without the Crown Magistrate in any way examining the debt or looking for its authenticity. It is not their mission. They put the whole burden of proof on you. You have three options in this mode.
Debt – approved
If you choose to sign the payment order and approve the debt, recovery will soon begin. This is whether it is a loan you actually took out or a debt that has been devised.
Guilt – if you do nothing at all
If you choose not to do anything at all, it is counted as a silent concession. If a claim comes, it must be disputed. There will be a backward burden of proof. In Sweden, you are not guilty until proven in court. But when it comes to the Chronicle, and the demands they have to drive in, you owe it as soon as anyone claims it. Then it is up to you to dispute this debt.
Guilt – if you dispute
Do you think the debt is wrong, it is a bit of a hurry. The Andilars Personal Loan website states that:
“You contest by notifying the Crown Chief of Staff in writing, usually no later than 10 days from the date of the order. “
Furthermore, it can be read that:
You are normally considered to have received part of the document in paragraph 1 when two weeks have elapsed from the date the document according to paragraph 1 was sent.
In less than a month everything must be ready – otherwise you have given silent consent.
The Crown Magistrate then makes a ruling, ie a decision. On the other hand, you can request “Recovery from the rash” within one month. But then it will be tried in court. Do you lose in court ” you may be required to pay the applicant’s legal costs.” Are you willing to take that risk?
Have you chosen to dispute the debt “lies the ball” with the company. They can now decide how they want to proceed. Either they ignore trying to bring the case in or they go to the District Court with the question. For this, a fee of SEK 600-2500 is paid. A cost that falls on the company that wants to collect the debt. But if it turns out that the court is on the company side, the cost will fall on you. In addition to this fee, the costs of the trial can also be added.
Do you take the risk of paying the court costs or do you choose to pay the debt at this stage? Many choose it later. Because even if you feel right, large sums are at stake. As long as the debt is not paid, interest costs can also increase. The report mentioned loans with about 35% in interest – per month.
But the District Court should well realize that it is a scam?
An example is given where a person received a demand letter from a known scam company. The matter was referred to the District Court, which stood on the company’s side. They then assumed that the person did not dispute the claim and thus with their silence approved it. The person chose to move on and got it right in the High Court. The reason was that the company could not show a single document that showed that the person had signed an agreement.
The story is somewhat frightening as the District Court obviously did not request evidence from the company that the agreement existed. Did they only choose to make their court decision on the passive behavior of a heavily indebted person? Hopefully there is more information behind this, but as it is stated in the review from PLUS, it was precisely the lack of agreements that caused the High Court to go against the District Court’s decision.
What is the alternative?
At first glance at today’s system, it may look like the bluff companies are favoring. This is because they can send claims to anyone and then see if they get the money or not. By addressing people in difficult financial situations, they increase their “chance” that the people do not actively contest the injunction. Sending a payment order costs only SEK 300 for the company. A small sum against what they can earn from recovering pretense debt.
At the same time you have to look at the alternative. If a person owes a bank money and does not pay this amount, the only way is to go through the Andilars Personal Loan to get the money recovered. It is Andilars Personal Loan who thus sends out payment orders. Obviously, as a borrower, “don’t ignore” opening these letters should not benefit. Thus, there needs to be a function that means that non-action also means that you accept the debt.
At the same time, the example with the District Court above shows that the burden of proof is entirely on the private person, which may be perceived as somewhat distorted. Because when the company got the press to show contract they could not do this. Did the matter really need to be referred to the High Court for such a detail to be clarified? As the system looks today, it may need to be pulled this far.
Agreement – no payment order requirement
To claim money with the help of Andilars Personal Loan, companies need to fill in an application for payment order. [Edit 2019-03-21: here was previously a link to the form but it has been removed since the form was moved]. Here, for example, you should mention information about the Applicant, Defendant Lining and Interest. But there is no single proof that there is an agreement. Not needed?
We contacted the Crown Magistrate and they replied that no agreement need be attached. This has really lowered the threshold for fraudsters to exploit the system. They take an extremely small risk.
What happens if a company applies for a payment order against a private person and that person chooses to dispute the claim? Nothing – provided the company does not push it further. They have only lost SEK 300 in fees.
Although the Crown Magistrate does not have the task of checking the correctness of the requirements, it would be desirable for an agreement to be attached in the event that they claim that a written agreement exists.
Would they have dared to send out claims to the same extent if they had to attach agreements already to the claim? Given that in that case they have to make a forged signature, they need to play a significantly higher game than today (as they only risk a loss of 300 SEK).
Perhaps the case that went to the High Court would have already been stopped in the District Court if the burden of proof regarding agreements had already existed in the claims chain. That a case should go as far as the High Court before a company is required to prove the basis of a debt is strange.