The reminder is not a prompt. It is evidence

There is a particular kind of sentence that appears in almost every reminder letter written in this country: “We assume this is an oversight.”

It rarely is.

A business that does not pay has usually made a choice. Not a malicious one — simply a choice. There is not enough money for every bill this week, and so the bills that get paid are the ones where not paying hurts the most. That is not morality. It is liquidity management, and everyone does it.

If that premise holds, the whole idea of the reminder as a prompt falls apart. You cannot remind someone of something they have not forgotten.

Who the reminder is really written for

Read your own reminder again, and imagine it being read aloud in the bailiff’s court nine months from now.

Is the invoice number there? Are the invoice date, the due date and the amount there? Is it clear what the claim relates to? Is there a deadline, and does it say what happens when the deadline expires? Is there anything to show that the letter was actually sent?

Those are the questions that get asked, and they get asked at a point where it is too late to do anything about the answer. A reminder that says “you have an outstanding balance with us” is useless on the day the debtor raises an objection — and it is worthless as documentation when the case has to go further.

That is what we mean when we say the reminder is evidence. Not that it should be unpleasant. That it should be precise.

The friendly tone is not the problem. The absent consequence is

We are not here to defend the brutal letter. Proper debt collection practice is not a formality, and a threat that cannot be made good on is both unlawful and foolish.

But there is a difference between tone and consequence, and most reminders confuse the two. They are courteous, and they promise nothing. They are friendly, and they commit to nothing. They say “we hope to receive payment shortly”, and they do not say what happens if it fails to arrive.

A reminder without a consequence is a prompt. And prompts go to the bottom of the pile — not because the debtor is indifferent, but because there are other letters in that pile which state what happens next.

The consequence is not a sharper choice of words. The consequence is the notice of collection, the ten-day period it gives, and the fact that the deadline is actually kept.

That is where the process most often dies

Three reminders and then silence is the most common sequence in Danish business. It is also the most expensive.

It is not because the three letters were wrong. It is because the fourth never came. Three reminders without a notice of collection are three letters that have taught the debtor that nothing happens — and the next time he has to prioritise his bills, he knows it.

You cannot threaten your way to a payment. You can very easily train someone out of making one.

So write it for the bailiff

The curious thing is that when you write the reminder for the bailiff’s court, it also becomes a better reminder.

It becomes short. It becomes specific. It contains the figures, the dates and the deadline. It promises one thing, and it keeps that promise. And a debtor takes it seriously, precisely because it does not read like a letter written to make someone feel uncomfortable — but like a letter written by someone who knows the road ahead and intends to walk it.

It is not a harsher reminder. It is a reminder that means it.