Sami Asujamaa, who runs a property management company, was recently surprised to learn that the National Enforcement Authority Finland had seized money from his company’s account to settle an unpaid invoice for a service it never ordered.
It emerged that the charge — for a fire inspection by the the regional welfare services authority — was in fact addressed to a completely different company.
“We did not receive the original invoice, not even an explanation. And suddenly the money just disappeared from our account,” he said.
The property management company that was originally billed no longer exists. For unclear reasons, the welfare services region redirected the charge to Asujamaa’s firm without any warning or inquiry.
When contacted, the enforcement authority told Asujamaa that it only collects debts and doesn’t verify them.
“The response was basically, ‘We’re sorry, but you have to figure it out yourself.’ It left me feeling quite powerless and unfairly treated,” he said.
Though the amount was eventually refunded after he contested the claim, Asujamaa finds it alarming how easily payments can be sent to enforcement without anyone verifying who is truly responsible for paying.
Challenging false claims can be costly
The case involving Asujamaa’s company mirrors a common issue faced by many consumers. According to a recent Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority (FCCA) report, thousands of unjustified, outdated, or unreasonable payment claims are made against ordinary consumers each year through what is known as summary civil cases.
Summary civil cases are undisputed civil cases that are resolved by a district court through a written procedure. In practice, the court often serves as a rubber stamp for debt collection, whether the claim is justified or not.
According to Paula Hannula, Head of Unit at the FCCA, the problem with the whole process is that it is also used in disputed or even unjustified cases.
“The district court does not look in detail at whether the claim is reasonable, expired, or based on an actual agreement. If the consumer doesn’t respond, a default judgment is issued,” Hannula said.
The FCCA estimates there are thousands of unjustified claims each year, often involving unclear subscriptions, excessive credit costs, or disputed utility bills. Some debt collectors and companies knowingly push these through the fast-track process, despite claims not being clear-cut.
Defending against an unfounded claim is hard for consumers, partly due to high legal costs. Many fear having to pay the other side’s fees if they lose, so they often avoid going to court even if the claim is dubious.
“Often, a consumer would need legal help to understand whether it’s worth disputing the claim. The most vulnerable, like those already heavily in debt, can simply become exhausted and give up on responding altogether,” Hannula said.
FCCA calls for legal reforms
The FCCA is proposing several changes to the current summary debt collection process. For example, it suggests that the content of debt summons applications should be clarified so that consumers can understand exactly what the claim concerns and whether, for instance, it has already expired.
The consumer authority also said that district courts should examine incoming collection cases more thoroughly. In addition, court fees should be made more affordable for consumers.
“In every case where we have assisted a consumer in court, the ruling has been in their favour. That shows these claims are often genuinely questionable,” Hannula said.
In its report, the FCCA stated that companies that abuse the system should face penalties.
“At present, there are no consequences if a company tries to push a claim through the summary process even when it’s clear that the debt is disputed,” Hannula said.