Debt Collection Companies: Your Rights Against Abusive Practices

A letter in a threatening tone arrives in the post: "Final notice before seizure", an aggressive letterhead, a logo imitating that of a court, an amount inflated by "file fees" and "penalties". The recipient, an over-indebted individual or the head of a small business, wonders whether he or she must pay immediately, whether a seizure could happen tomorrow, and whether a debt believed forgotten for years can still be claimed. These practices thrive because they play on the debtor's ignorance of his or her rights. This guide explains what a debt collection company may lawfully demand, where abuse begins, how to rely on limitation periods and how to challenge unjustified fees or a questionable formal notice.

Amicable recovery and enforced recovery: two worlds never to be confused

The first confusion fostered by some debt collection companies concerns their real powers. An amicable debt collection company is a private business acting on behalf of a creditor (bank, telecoms operator, landlord, supplier). Its activity is governed by Articles R124-1 to R124-7 of the French Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures, deriving from Decree No. 96-1112 of 18 December 1996 on the amicable recovery of debts on behalf of third parties. The status of these companies, their conditions of operation and their assignments are presented in our guide on the role of debt collection companies.

That status has a decisive consequence: an amicable debt collection company has no power of compulsion. It cannot seize a bank account, block a salary, call on the police or enter a home. It sends letters, makes calls and offers payment schedules. Nothing more.

Enforced recovery, by contrast, requires two cumulative conditions. First, an enforceable title (titre exécutoire): a judgment, an order for payment (injonction de payer) that has become enforceable, or a notarial deed bearing the enforcement formula. Second, the involvement of a commissaire de justice (bailiff), a new profession created on 1 July 2022 by the merger of huissiers de justice and commissaires-priseurs judiciaires, the only person authorised to carry out a seizure. Where a seizure targets an account, the sums that must remain available and the time limits for challenge are set out in our article on seizure of a bank account by a bailiff.

In other words, as long as no judge has been seised and no enforceable title exists, the threat of an imminent seizure made by an amicable debt collection company is misleading. A debtor may receive ten aggressive reminders without his or her assets being exposed to any enforcement measure.

The case of the debt collection company that buys the debt

One variant deserves attention. Some companies do not merely act for a third party: they buy the debt from the original creditor, often for a fraction of its value, and then claim it in their own name. This mechanism, the assignment of debt under Articles 1321 et seq. of the French Civil Code, is lawful. But it changes nothing about the debtor's rights: the assignee company acquires no more rights than the assignor had. If the debt was time-barred, it remains so. If the fees were unjustified, they remain so. The debtor may moreover demand proof of the assignment and of the notification made to him or her.

What a debt collection company may demand, and what it may not

The form of a reminder letter is not free. Article R124-4 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures imposes mandatory particulars. The letter must state the name or company name of the person in charge of recovery, its contact details, the name of the creditor on whose behalf it acts, the basis and amount of the sum claimed, distinguishing principal, interest and other additional sums, as well as the indication that payment is required and the means of payment.

A letter that conceals the creditor's identity, that lumps together a sum without detailing what is principal and what is fees, or that states no clear legal basis, does not comply with these requirements. That is a first concrete ground of challenge.

Conversely, a debt collection company has no right to:

• present itself as a public service, an administration or a court, or use a logo, a name or a presentation liable to be confused with that of a commissaire de justice or a court
• state that a seizure will take place when no enforceable title exists
• claim from the debtor the costs of amicable recovery outside the cases provided for by law
• disclose the existence of the debt to the employer, family, neighbours or third parties
• make repeated calls in conditions amounting to harassment

These limits are not theoretical. The Directorate-General for Competition, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Control (DGCCRF) monitors these practices and regularly penalises operators who cross them.

Limitation: the debtor's first line of defence

The most powerful argument, and the least well known, is limitation (prescription). A debt cannot be claimed for ever. After a certain period without action, the creditor loses the right to bring proceedings to obtain enforced payment.

Which period for which debt

The general rule sets the limitation period at five years under Article 2224 of the French Civil Code, running from the day the creditor knew or should have known the facts enabling it to exercise its right.

But many everyday debts are subject to a shorter period. Article L218-2 of the French Consumer Code provides that the action of professionals for goods or services supplied to consumers is time-barred after two years. In practical terms, a mobile phone bill, a subscription, a consumer loan or a service provided to an individual is generally subject to this two-year period.

Take a concrete example. In 2025 an individual receives a reminder for an unpaid telecoms operator invoice whose last instalment dates from 2021, with no legal action having been brought in the meantime. The debt is very probably time-barred under Article L218-2. The debt collection company may still write, but it will never be able to obtain an enforceable title, because a court seised would raise the limitation defence.

That is the whole point of the issue of a time-barred debt and recovery: an amicable reminder of a time-barred debt is not prohibited in itself, but it cannot be accompanied by any threat of legal action, since that action is extinguished.

The essential nuance: a time-barred debt is not a debt that has disappeared

A legal subtlety must be understood to avoid a trap. Limitation extinguishes the right of action, not the obligation itself, which survives as a natural obligation. Two consequences follow.

First, if the debtor voluntarily pays a time-barred debt, he or she cannot recover the sums paid by relying on limitation after the event. Second, and this is the critical point, any acknowledgment of the debt restarts the period. Article 2240 of the French Civil Code provides that the debtor's acknowledgment of the right of the person against whom he or she was running the limitation period interrupts that period. A part payment, a request for a payment schedule, a letter acknowledging that the sum is owed: each of these acts restarts limitation from zero.

The defensive rule is therefore simple. Faced with a debt believed to be time-barred, do not pay, do not sign an acknowledgment of debt and do not propose a payment schedule. Raise limitation in writing and leave the creditor to bring the matter before a judge if it dares.

Unjustified fees: who must bear the cost of amicable recovery

The second reflex of challenge concerns fees. Many debtors see the amount claimed swell with "recovery fees", "file fees" or "management fees" added by the company itself.

The principle is laid down in Article L111-8 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures:

Unless legislation provides otherwise, the costs of recovery undertaken without an enforceable title remain the responsibility of the creditor. Any stipulation to the contrary is deemed unwritten, except for costs incurred by the creditor after prior written notice to the debtor.

The rule is clear: the costs of amicable recovery, undertaken without an enforceable title, fall in principle on the creditor, not the debtor. A debt collection company that unilaterally adds 15, 30 or 50 euros of "file fees" to the sum due is most often claiming a sum that is not owed. A clause in the original contract placing those costs on the debtor is deemed unwritten.

There are exceptions, notably where the debtor is in bad faith or where costs have been properly incurred after prior written notice, but they are interpreted strictly. This question lies at the heart of the rights of the debtor against a debt collection company: the debtor owes only the principal, the contractual or statutory interest due, and the additional sums genuinely justified, not the fees the company charges its own client.

A debtor company, in a relationship between professionals, is in a different position: Article L441-10 of the French Commercial Code provides for a fixed recovery indemnity in the event of late payment between professionals. But here again, the amount and the basis must be checked, because this indemnity follows precise rules and is not to be confused with freely added fees.

Harassment and aggressive practices: when a reminder becomes an offence

Reminding a debtor is legitimate. Harassing a debtor is unlawful. The line is crossed when methods tip into undue pressure.

The Consumer Code punishes aggressive commercial practices in Articles L121-6 and L121-7. A practice is aggressive where, through repeated and insistent solicitations or the use of physical or moral coercion, it significantly impairs the recipient's freedom of choice. These offences carry criminal penalties: Article L132-11 of the Consumer Code provides for up to two years' imprisonment and a fine of 300,000 euros.

The following are indications of an abusive debt collection company:

• repeated telephone calls at unreasonable hours, early or late, or several times a day
• false threats of seizure, eviction or criminal proceedings when no title exists and non-payment of a civil debt is not an offence
• disclosure of the debt to family, the employer or neighbours, which may amount to an invasion of privacy
• sending letters imitating official court documents to provoke fear
• pressure on a vulnerable or elderly person or one in a manifestly fragile situation

Imagine a person receiving, every day for two weeks, several calls from the same collection department, with messages announcing the imminent visit of an "agent" to his or her home. No enforceable title exists. This accumulation amounts to an aggressive practice liable to sanction, even regardless of whether the debt is owed.

The fundamental legal reminder must be hammered home: under French law, the mere fact of not paying a civil debt is not a criminal offence. No one goes to prison for an unpaid invoice. Any letter suggesting otherwise is misleading.

Challenging a formal notice or an order for payment

The questionable formal notice

A formal notice (mise en demeure) is merely an act by which the creditor calls on the debtor to perform. It causes late-payment interest to run but in itself has no enforceable force. It may be challenged on the merits (time-barred debt, incorrect amount, unjustified fees, debt already paid, absence of supporting documents) as well as on form (failure to include the particulars required by Article R124-4).

Good practice is to reply in writing, by registered letter with acknowledgment of receipt, challenging point by point: challenge to limitation where applicable, challenge to fees under Article L111-8, request for supporting documents (original contract, detailed statement of account, proof of the assignment of debt if the company acts in its own name). This written reply is a valuable record and avoids silence, which is often interpreted as tacit admission.

The order for payment, the real turning point

The order for payment procedure (injonction de payer), governed by Articles 1405 et seq. of the French Code of Civil Procedure, changes the nature of the matter. It is a judicial procedure. The creditor applies to the judge, who issues an order. That order is then served on the debtor by a commissaire de justice. The conduct of this written procedure, from the creditor's side, is described in our article on the order for payment applied to invoices between businesses.

The time limit here is critical: the debtor has one month from service to lodge an objection. That is the only way to reopen the debate before the judge, to raise limitation and to challenge the amount or the fees. After that period without objection, the order becomes enforceable and the creditor finally obtains the title authorising seizure. Ignoring the service of an order for payment is the error with the heaviest consequences, because it turns a questionable debt into an enforced debt.

Practical remedies and good reflexes

In the face of abusive practices, several levers exist and may be combined.

Report the practices of a debt collection company (unjustified fees, false threats, harassment) to the DGCCRF through the SignalConso platform. These reports feed administrative inspections.

Refer a consumer dispute to the competent consumer mediator, free of charge, before or alongside legal action.

File a criminal complaint where the facts amount to harassment or aggressive commercial practices, or refer the matter to the public prosecutor (procureur de la République).

Consult a lawyer to build the strategy of challenge, notably where an order for payment has been served and the one-month objection period is running, or where the debt is substantial.

For an individual in a situation of overall indebtedness, apply to the over-indebtedness commission (commission de surendettement) at the Banque de France, which may suspend enforcement and reorganise the liabilities.

One last reflex provides effective protection: keep everything. Letters, envelopes, call logs, voicemails, screenshots. Proof of harassment or irregularity rests on this accumulation of records.

Conclusion: never give in to fear, always check the law

The effectiveness of abusive debt collection companies rests on a single mechanism: the fear of a debtor who wrongly believes that a seizure can fall overnight. Yet the law protects the debtor firmly. An amicable debt collection company has no power of compulsion, the costs of amicable recovery fall in principle on the creditor, a debt may be time-barred after two years in dealings with a consumer, and non-payment of a civil debt is never an offence.

The position is clear: faced with a reminder, the first step is not to pay but to check. Check limitation, check the breakdown of the amount, check the legitimacy of the fees, check whether or not an enforceable title exists. And above all, never spontaneously acknowledge a debt whose age suggests it is time-barred, because that acknowledgment would restart the period.

Before any payment and before any written reply to a debt collection company, have the letter received analysed: identify the date of the last unpaid instalment to assess limitation, demand a detailed statement distinguishing principal, interest and fees, and, if an order for payment has been served on you, never let the one-month period for objection run out.

Frequently asked questions

Can a debt collection company seize my bank account or my salary?

No, not directly. An amicable debt collection company has no power of compulsion. A seizure requires two conditions: an enforceable title (judgment, order for payment that has become enforceable, notarial deed) and the involvement of a commissaire de justice. As long as no judge has ruled, the threat of an imminent seizure is misleading.

After how long is a debt time-barred?

The general period is five years (Article 2224 of the French Civil Code). But for goods and services supplied by a professional to a consumer, Article L218-2 of the Consumer Code reduces this period to two years. An unpaid telecoms bill, subscription or consumer loan is generally subject to this two-year period, counted from the last unpaid instalment without legal action.

Can I be prosecuted if I do not pay a debt?

No. Under French law, non-payment of a civil debt is not a criminal offence. No prison sentence is incurred for an unpaid invoice or loan. A letter threatening criminal proceedings or a criminal record for that reason alone is a misleading practice and may be reported to the DGCCRF through SignalConso.

Can the debt collection company add file fees?

In principle no. Article L111-8 of the Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures provides that the costs of recovery undertaken without an enforceable title remain the responsibility of the creditor, and that any contrary clause is deemed unwritten. An individual debtor therefore owes only the principal, the interest due and the justified additional sums, not the fees the company charges its client, subject to the strict exceptions provided by law.

What should I do if I acknowledge owing the debt but it is time-barred?

Sign nothing and pay nothing without careful thought. Limitation extinguishes the right of action but not the obligation itself. A part payment, a request for a payment schedule or a letter acknowledging the debt interrupts the period (Article 2240 of the French Civil Code) and restarts it from zero. The right reflex is to raise limitation in writing and to take no step amounting to acknowledgment.

I have received an order for payment, what should I do?

Act quickly. An order for payment is a judicial procedure: after service by a commissaire de justice, the debtor has one month to lodge an objection (Articles 1405 et seq. of the French Code of Civil Procedure). The objection reopens the debate before the judge and allows limitation, an incorrect amount or unjustified fees to be raised. After that period without objection, the order becomes enforceable and opens the way to seizure.

How can I prove harassment by a debt collection company?

By keeping all records: call logs showing frequency and times, voicemails, letters and envelopes, screenshots of text messages or emails. Repeated and insistent solicitations, false threats or disclosure of the debt to family and friends may amount to an aggressive commercial practice, punished by Articles L121-6 et seq. of the Consumer Code, with up to two years' imprisonment and a fine of 300,000 euros.