There are problems related to debt collection action intended for undisputed debt matters. As a result, consumers are required to pay unclear and unfounded debts. The Consumer Ombudsman considers the situation worrying from the perspective of consumer legal protection. To rectify the situation, there should be sanctions for the misuse of summary proceedings, and a cap should be placed on consumers’ legal costs.
Undisputed, or summary, debt collection action is meant for clear and undisputed matters, such as unpaid credits or invoices. However, the supervision cases handled by the Consumer Ombudsman and experiences gained from legal assistance, along with a study published by the Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority in June 2025 titled “Issues and Possible Misuse of Summary Proceedings in Consumer Debt Collection Action” (in Finnish) indicate that the procedure is also used in disputed and unclear matters. In these situations, the consumer is significantly at a disadvantage compared to the plaintiff.
The debt collection action is advantageous, easy, and low risk for the plaintiff. The case is resolved in a written procedure where no evidence needs to be presented. If the consumer does not respond to the summons, the claim is accepted by default judgment. The plaintiff can also withdraw their claims generally without consequences. The consumer, by contrast, may lack the information and skills needed to dispute an unclear claim and may not dare to pursue the matter further for fear of high legal costs.
The government programme states that the government will explore the possibility of developing the debt collection procedure for undisputed claims. The Consumer Ombudsman considers it important to address these issues.
”The current form of the debt collection action significantly undermines legal protection and erodes citizens' trust in the functioning of the legal system. The flaws in the procedure must be corrected.”
Consumers’ cost risks must be reduced
The Consumer Ombudsman propose that in order to prevent misuse, it should be possible to impose sanctions on creditors if a claim brought to summary proceedings is not actually undisputed. The Consumer Ombudsman is aware of cases where the consumer has already disputed the debt before the application for a summons, yet the plaintiff still demands payment through a summary application.
Creditor should also have an obligation to clarify the basis of the claim more explicitly. Currently, applications for summons may refer to, for example, an “open invoice” without specifying which invoice is being referred to. If the consumer requests further clarification, the matter automatically becomes a broader dispute case, where the costs are significantly higher than in summary proceedings. There should be a cap on the costs that consumers may incur so that consumers would have a lower threshold for contesting unclear debt collection actions.
Small claims procedure should be extended to debt matters
The consumer’s position could also be improved by introducing a small claims procedure. In the small claims procedure, there is a limited risk of legal costs, and the court has broader powers than in ordinary civil proceedings to advise the parties. The small claims procedure has initially been proposed for residential tenancy matters, but it would be important to extend it to other individual consumer disputes under 10 000 euros as well.
Summary proceedings also place a burden on the courts. Under EU case-law, courts are required to examine whether the terms of the underlying contract for the claim are clear and understandable. Courts would need tools to more easily identify deficiencies and violations of the law in debt collection cases.
Issues related to debt collection cases and their possible solutions were discussed at the Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority’s KKV Day on November 5, 2025. Presentations and recordings from the event will be published later on the KKV website.