Difference between out-of-court and judicial debt collection

Debt collection, that is the recovery of a sum of money that is not paid within the established deadlines , is an activity of absolute importance and when it becomes necessary to start it it is advisable to contact professionals (lawyers enrolled in the register and / or highly specialized companies in the field, such as Credit Group Italia) to avoid wasting further time and money.

Before starting the procedure, you must be sure that the credit to be collected is certain, not bound and due and that the creditor is in possession of all the necessary documentation to certify its existence and consequent validity.

There are two different procedures for carrying out the debt collection : in court and out of court . Knowing the differences, their peculiarities and procedures is essential to act in the most appropriate way and thus ensure a timely recovery of what has been claimed.

But what is the difference between these two procedures ? Let’s try to figure it out together.

Debt collection: a premise

Before analyzing the differences between judicial and extrajudicial debt collection, it is important to know what the types of credit are. Credits are generally divided into financial credits and trade credits.

Financial credit mainly refers to relationships with credit institutions and financial companies. Among the most common are mortgages, financings, loans, current account advances and leasing.

Commercial credit is a type of credit which, unlike traditional ones, is not granted by a specialized entity such as banks and/or financial companies, but by commercial and/or industrial companies. This is an extension of payment that the supplier company grants to a client company.

Out-of-court debt collection

Out-of-court debt collection is a amicable procedure based on reminders carried out by the officer in charge by e-mail, telephone calls and finally < strong> home visits with the aim of inducing the debtor to pay spontaneously his debt which can be paid in different ways, including the signing of bills of exchange and the installment payment.

It is especially at this stage that it is essential to be authoritative and decisive but at the same time collaborative and institutional in order to preserve and protect the corporate image of customers as much as possible.

Judicial debt collection

If the out-of-court debt recovery does not result in definitive resolutions, we will proceed with the judicial debt collection, therefore through the intervention of the Court.

Before continuing with the judicial process, it may be necessary to ascertain the economic, financial and patrimonial situation of the debtor, in order to verify the existence of attackable capital and / or seizable assets. In the absence of these, a legal proceeding would in any case not lead to any economic advantage, instead causing only an additional outlay and a waste of further time. This is why asset assessments are a decisive tool in favor of the creditor who is about to proceed with a judicial action aimed at debt collection.

The legal process may vary depending on the specific situations, but in general the steps to be taken are as follows:

• Filing of the appeal for the issuance of the injunction.
• Issue of the injunction by the competent Judge and related notification to the debtor. The aforementioned decree may become enforceable only after failure to oppose within the terms established by law.
• Request for the enforceable formula, in which the necessary document is requested to notify the precept and the subsequent and possible deed of attachment to the debtor.
• Request for attachment and initiation of enforcement proceedings.

How to decide whether to proceed with out-of-court debt collection or judicial debt collection?

Generally we proceed in the first instance with the recovery of credits out of court and only subsequently, if the same does not lead to the desired results, the judicial process is started through the competent Court. This happens because out-of-court debt collection offers various advantages as it reduces the costs of handling the file and avoids a certainly more complex and laborious judicial process.

Lastly, the timeliness of interventions is fundamental , both as regards the out-of-court and judicial debt recovery phase.

The heartfelt advice , in this context, is to intervene , where possible, within six months from the expiry of the credit o and therefore ensure that the action of the credit management company’s specialists is rapid, incisive and decisive.