Business debt collection via interface or Excel: which handover method fits?

Three routes are generally open: internal processing in your own dunning system, handover to a collection agency, and the court route via the dunning procedure or a claim. These routes do not exclude each other; they build on one another.

Internal processing is cheap but ties up staff. External collection scales better, and the court procedure produces a title with long-lasting enforceability. In business-to-business trade, nine percentage points above the base rate plus the EUR 40 flat fee are the usual ancillary claims. In practice, reliability pays off faster than pressure.

Every option has prerequisites. The court dunning procedure requires a quantified claim and an address where documents can be served. Out-of-court collection works best on undisputed receivables with a complete chain of evidence.

The debtor's solvency also limits the benefit. A title against an insolvent debtor secures the claim long term but produces no money in the short term. The larger the volume, the more important standardised data formats and clearly defined service levels become. The thematic core stays the same: which handover method fits?.

Time and cost differ substantially. An internal reminder mainly costs working time, out-of-court collection often works on a success-related basis, and the court procedure requires court fees to be advanced.

Costs of legal pursuit can in principle be claimed as damage caused by default; in business-to-business trade the EUR 40 flat fee is set off against them. Reimbursement still presupposes that the debtor can pay. For business customers, a credit check before granting new payment terms is worth the effort. A fixed cycle is more effective than a review that only happens when someone asks for it.

A simple matrix helps with selection. The criteria are amount, age of the receivable, whether it is disputed, the debtor's solvency and the value of the customer relationship. Each combination points to a preferred option.

The matrix does not replace a case-by-case assessment, but it reduces internal debate and speeds up the decision considerably. Framework agreements should state how partial performance and interim invoices are handled. Translated into practice this means: which handover method fits?.

The recommended next step depends on whether the claim is disputed. If it is undisputed and the deadline has passed, handover to a collection agency is usually the most efficient route. If it is disputed, clarifying the objections comes first.

A compact package of invoice, contractual basis, proof of performance, reminder history and debtor data is usually enough for the handover. Companies with a steady volume of receivables benefit from a fixed handover cycle rather than one-off ad hoc instructions. What is prepared properly at this stage shortens every subsequent step.