The Battle Against Unjust Debt Collection Practices

How often have we resorted to financing to realize a personal project? In most cases, one manages to honor the contract by returning the money in installments. In others, it may happen that one cannot return the entire sum due to unforeseen financial difficulties, or, in some circumstances, one decides not to pay because the legality of the financing contract is contested, waiting to resolve the issue. Therefore, the creditor attempts to recover the sums, even formally summoning the debtor but, after a certain period without success, transfers their credit to companies specialized in debt recovery. We can be notified, even after many years, of a default notice with a payment request or an injunction by these debt recovery companies. From this moment on, a real nightmare begins for the consumer, who finds themselves having to defend against a new alleged creditor, who suddenly claims sums of money, moreover tripled compared to the original debt. But is everything according to the law? "Absolutely not. We have obtained justice - explained Carlo Claps, president of Aidacon - because two consumers from Naples turned to our association regarding financing contracts and the debt recovery company was condemned. The citizens, defended by our trusted lawyer Del Giudice, obtained an important ruling issued by the North Naples Court (order no. 1980/2024 of 09.04.2024), which accepted the opposition to the injunction of about 34,000 euros, notified by a debt recovery company, for an alleged financing contract, signed several years before and condemned the opposing company to pay seven thousand euros in legal fees." The sentence In particular, the court accepted the exception of lack of active legitimation of the debt recovery company, as it, during the process, did not prove to be the owner of the credit, not having provided suitable proof related to the contract under which it acquired the ownership of the credit right. "This is a very important sentence - explains Claps again - as in most cases, the debt recovery companies declare to have purchased the credits in bulk from the previous creditor but then when they start the actions for the recovery of the alleged credit against the assigned debtor, it emerges that they do not have a suitable title to prove the ownership of the credit." The Judge indeed specified: "...the Court, sharing the orientation of the Court of Cassation, highlights that the assignee has the burden to allege and prove the contract under which they acquired the ownership of the credit right and has the burden to prove the inclusion of the credit subject of the case in the block transfer operation, thereby providing documentary proof of their substantial legitimation, unless the respondent has explicitly or implicitly recognized it. This judge believes that the burden of proving the assignment contract, as a constitutive fact of the credit right, also exists in the absence of specific contestation by the assigned debtor. The production in court of the assignment notice in the Official Gazette is irrelevant because it does not necessarily contain the precise indication of the criteria for identifying the credits subject of the assignment contract. It cannot be considered that the notice in the G.U. constitutes a written principle of evidence that allows the admissibility of witness testimony, and therefore, of presumptive proof. In our case, the notice in the G.U. comes from the intermediary who asserts the claim based on the assignment contract..."