Debt collection and seizure exemption thresholds 2026: what has changed since 2026-07-01

Since 2026-07-01, the monthly basic amount protected from attachment under the 2026 German garnishment-threshold notice is EUR 1,587.40. Additional protected amounts depend in particular on statutory maintenance obligations; the official table is decisive. The threshold concerns the attachability of earned income, not the existence or due date of the claim. Before enforcement, the creditor should verify the enforceable title, service, debtor data and the appropriate enforcement measure. For the specific issue “what has changed since 2026-07-01”, this requirement should be recorded in the review note with its date and supporting evidence.

For “what has changed since 2026-07-01”, the starting point is not the reminder stage but a verified set of facts. The reviewer records the legal basis of the claim, contracting party, amount, due date, receipt and payments before drawing a legal or operational conclusion. In “what has changed since 2026-07-01”, this control determines whether the standard workflow applies or an individual review is required.

An enforceable German title permits several measures, including seizure of movable assets, a Vermögensauskunft (German statement of assets), bank attachment or wage attachment. Under section 802c ZPO (German Code of Civil Procedure), the Gerichtsvollzieher (German court bailiff) may obtain the statement of assets; other measures commonly require a court attachment and transfer order. Not every measure is economical in every case. Lawfully obtained information about employment, banks, vehicles, property or business activity should be weighed against cost and likely recovery. For “what has changed since 2026-07-01”, the workflow should continue only after ownership, deadline and the exception route are clearly set in the system.

The rule should not exist only in a manual. The system should define a trigger, case owner, deadline and escalation path, making it clear why the case was processed, paused or transferred. For “what has changed since 2026-07-01”, quality control should reconcile the balance and underlying entries once more against the original evidence.

Before any reminder or handover, the creditor should reconcile the creditor and debtor identities, contract, performance, invoice amount, due date, payments, credit notes and objections. The company name and legal form must match the actual contracting party. For ongoing contracts, termination, term and billing period must be checked. Only the balance remaining after all payments and credits may be pursued. A short internal approval step prevents non-existent claims, duplicate handling and unnecessary costs. In “what has changed since 2026-07-01”, this control determines whether the standard workflow applies or an individual review is required.

For larger portfolios, apply the rule consistently while allowing justified exceptions. Defined thresholds, a documented exception route and sample controls help prevent automation from producing factually incorrect measures. The outcome for “what has changed since 2026-07-01” should record the current balance, next date, reason for the decision and responsible person. The debt collection file should therefore show the decision, supporting documents and calculation in a complete audit trail.

The remuneration agreed between the creditor and the debt collection provider depends on the engagement. It may be claimed from the debtor only as default damage where the legal requirements are met and the expenditure was necessary. Section 13e RDG (German Legal Services Act) generally limits recoverable collection costs to the remuneration a lawyer could charge for the same work under the RVG (German Lawyers Remuneration Act). Court, service and enforcement costs arise separately. It is therefore inaccurate to describe collection as always free for either party. For “what has changed since 2026-07-01”, quality control should reconcile the balance and underlying entries once more against the original evidence.

A common mistake is to infer default directly from an open balance. Corrections, counter-rights and receipt issues must be checked first, and calculations should allow a third party to reconstruct every amount and period. For the specific issue “what has changed since 2026-07-01”, this requirement should be recorded in the review note with its date and supporting evidence.

The minimum file should contain the contract or order, invoice, evidence of delivery or performance, agreed payment terms, correspondence, reminder, bank or customer ledger, credit notes and objections. Depending on the case, acceptance records, time sheets, shipping data, termination notices, terms and security may be needed. Documents should be named chronologically and stored without alteration. A short factual summary identifying unresolved points reduces queries and prevents inconsistent information from reaching the debtor, collection provider or court. The outcome for “what has changed since 2026-07-01” should record the current balance, next date, reason for the decision and responsible person.

The article therefore leads to a reviewable decision rather than a blanket measure. Once the claim and evidence are clear, Fortis Inkasso GmbH & Co. KG can take the next out-of-court step; objections should first be assessed legally. For “what has changed since 2026-07-01”, the workflow should continue only after ownership, deadline and the exception route are clearly set in the system.