When correspondence does not work, two routes remain. They differ in cost, in speed, and above all in whether the counterparty takes part at all.
The disputes board is cheaper and simpler, but works only if the business is affiliated or participates voluntarily. The subdistrict court is always available, requires no admitted attorney for claims up to twenty-five thousand euros, and produces an enforceable judgment. Against an unwilling party with no trustmark, that last point is often the only route that ends in money.
The Dutch disputes board (Geschillencommissie) handles consumer complaints by sector. You file a complaint, pay a filing fee, and the board rules in the form of a binding opinion. The filing fee depends on the sector committee and the size of the claim, and is usually refunded if you succeed.
The condition that decides everything: the business must be affiliated with the relevant committee, or willing to take part voluntarily. If it is not, the case is not heard. Precisely the retailers that cause the most problems are affiliated with nothing.
There is also a condition on the consumer's side: you must first have raised the complaint with the business itself and allowed it a reasonable period. Skip that step and the complaint is declared inadmissible.
Claims up to twenty-five thousand euros are heard by the subdistrict court. Representation by an admitted attorney is not required there, which means a consumer or a legal professional can conduct the case. You pay a court fee, set annually, which for a natural person on small claims is relatively low. Check the current rate with the Judiciary before starting.
If your case succeeds, the result is a judgment that allows attachment. That is the essential difference from every other route: a binding opinion or a trustmark decision still has to be complied with; a judgment can be enforced.
If the counterparty is in another EU country, the European Small Claims Procedure is also available for cross-border matters up to five thousand euros. See international recovery.
| Disputes board | Subdistrict court | |
|---|---|---|
| Always available | No, only for affiliated parties | Yes |
| Cost up front | Filing fee, varies by sector | Court fee, set annually |
| Attorney required | No | No, up to 25,000 euros |
| Outcome | Binding opinion | Judgment, enforceable |
| Duration | Months | Months or longer |
| With a trustmark holder | Often a compliance guarantee | Not applicable |
Two limitation points are decisive in cases like these.
Both routes cost time and money and are rarely proportionate for a claim of a hundred euros. That is why our method runs differently: a formal notice of default with a deadline, and failing that a targeted escalation to the point where the counterparty feels it. For a trustmark holder that is its trustmark, for a larger party its legal department, and for a payment service provider its contract. See how we work.
If that turns out not to work, we say honestly what proceedings would cost and whether they are worth it. We do not push a case that costs the client more than it returns.
Most cases end with a well-substantiated demand and a deadline. Submit your case and we will try that route first.