‘Kees van der Spek Unmasks,’ does he also mean and collect?

The television program of Kees van der Spek is (also) very interesting for lawyers to watch. In his weekly show, Van der Spek pays attention to scammers who often leave for foreign countries with large debts. They leave their creditors penniless. If it is up to Kees van der Spek, they will not get away with it: he travels abroad together with the creditors to unmask and confront the swindler. That makes for rewarding television. Also in the episode from last Monday contained a number of elements that could be used for the collection practice are relevant. It gives an insight into the (im)possibilities of the Debt collection abroad.

Kees van der Spek: “I have a verdict for you, I mean it to you.”

Last Monday's case revolved around a former employee of an optician from Zoetermeer. That employee (Emile), nota bene, was the foster son of the optician's brother. The family love was not very deep, Emile had paid his foster father and employer several tons of scammed. The man was summarily dismissed at the time and subsequently ordered by the District Court of The Hague to pay €85,000 plus interest and costs. The judgment dates from 2012. It was never served on Emile by the bailiff because he fled to the Philippines shortly after the judgment was issued.

Judgment served by bailiff

Van der Spek tells viewers that Emile has never personally learned of the verdict. Therefore, one of his goals in the broadcast is to hand it to him personally. Van der Spek indicates that in legal terms this is called “signifying.” However, that is not quite correct. There is only service if it is done by the bailiff. Only the bailiff is authorized to serve judgments and other documents. The moment at which a judgment is served by the bailiff, may be relevant to whether there are periodic penalty payments start running or other legal deadlines. The delivery of the judgment by Van der Spek does not (in this case) have those legal consequences.

Handing over in person may have legal relevance though

However, the fact that Van der Spek could not signify the judgment does not mean that its delivery was entirely without legal effect. In this case, although there was no default judgment, but if that had been the case, then it is defensible that the rescission period begins to run at the moment Van der Spek confronted the debtor and informed him of the contents of the judgment. Kees van der Spek reports:

“I did mean it to you, you have to pay a ton”

How much should Emile actually pay?   

Another relevant question that arose during the broadcast is how much Emile actually has to pay his former employer. The judgment states €85,000 plus interest, but that does not automatically mean that the interest for the past 13 years is also still due in full. In fact, if a judgment declares a condemnation, the principal sum only lapses after 20 years, but a shorter period applies to the interest owed thereon statute of limitations, namely five years. That is what the blog which you can find here. The confrontation by Van der Spek and the notice of the optician's claim for payment may be relevant to the question of whether interruption was validly made.

Debt collection abroad: collect information

One of the biggest challenges of debt collection practice is collecting debts abroad or from individuals who have no assets in their names. However, sometimes it only appears that way and assets are well hidden. Emile's case involves a combination of these. For the optician, however, the broadcast provides useful insights into the ins and outs of Emile. These provide various possibilities for successful debt collection.

Seizure or application for bankruptcy of foreign debtor

First of all, it turned out that Emile has been staying in the Philippines on a tourist visa all these years. So it is possible that he is still registered in the Netherlands and therefore it is somewhat easier to take measures against him in or from the Netherlands. In addition, Emile let slip which bank he banks at. That gives opportunities to take action under that bank foreclosure lay. Finally, Van der Spek extracted information about a support claim. That offers opportunities to improve the bankruptcy of Emile to apply. This is often a good means of pressure to get the debtor to pay voluntarily. And if not: then the trustee can get to work selling assets to satisfy the debts.

Lawyer for debt collection abroad

The optician let it be known at the end of the broadcast that he was not going to leave it at that. To Emile he said that he would not accept the “most miserable lawyer in the Phillipines” on him. The latter might then be able to work with the information collected by Kees van der Spek's program. In addition, it was announced in the credits that the optician has also engaged a private investigator to gather even more information about Emile's possessions. Van der Spek's broadcast came to an end. The dispute between the optician and Emile will probably still be continued. We look forward to the next broadcast of Kees van der Spek.