You do not have to pay an invoice for a fraud investigation or a claim from SODA (the Service Organisatie Directe Aansprakelijkstelling, the bureau that collects investigation costs on behalf of insurers) simply because of who sent it. There must be a legal basis, and the costs claimed must be adequately substantiated. Where necessary, dispute both the alleged fraud and the individual cost items. Ask for the investigation report, a breakdown and an explanation of the link between your conduct and the invoice.
Nederlands: Lees dit artikel in het Nederlands: Onderzoekskosten en een SODA-vordering na verdenking van fraude
Türkçe: Bu makaleyi Türkçe okuyun: Dolandırıcılık şüphesi sonrası soruşturma masrafları ve SODA alacağı
Written by Onur Arslan, attorney at Arslan Advocaten. Registered in the specialisation register of the Netherlands Bar for employment law and personal injury. Last updated: 22 September 2026.
After an insurance claim has been rejected, several letters may follow: about termination of the policy, registration of personal data, repayment of a benefit and investigation costs. These decisions may be related, but they are not all subject to the same legal requirements. An objection to the rejection therefore does not automatically deal with the invoice for costs.
What is a SODA claim in insurance fraud cases?
Among other things, SODA assists in recovering losses that, according to an insurer, have been caused by insurance fraud. A letter may relate to the handling of the fraud, the investigation or other costs claimed. Check who the letter names as the creditor, on whose behalf SODA is acting and exactly what payment is being requested for.
Such a claim is not a criminal fine imposed by the government. It is a civil claim. Nor is the letter itself a court ruling that fraud has been proven or that all the amounts are owed. That said, an adequately substantiated claim can have legal consequences.
Fraud and costs are separate questions
The first question is whether the alleged deception actually took place. A mistake, a vague recollection or a missing invoice is not, without further assessment, the same as deliberately providing incorrect information. Respond precisely to what you are accused of and support your explanation with original documents.
The second question is whether the insurer suffered the loss claimed as a result. Even if deception is established, not every amount is automatically owed. Ask, for example, which additional work was required because of your conduct and which work formed part of a normal claim assessment.
This point was expressly decided by Kifid, the Dutch Financial Services Complaints Tribunal, in Kifid, Disputes Committee (Geschillencommissie), 9 April 2018, no. 2018-228. In that case, the insurer had charged € 532 in investigation costs through SODA and justified that amount by stating that it was the average amount of investigation costs per claim report. The committee held that the investigation costs claimed are only eligible for reimbursement if the insurer demonstrates in some way that it actually incurred those costs as a result of the failure attributed to the consumer. Because it had not been shown that any work had been carried out in this case, how many hours had been spent on it and how those hours had been reflected in the amount, not even prima facie evidence had been provided, and the amount could not be charged. Notably, the fraud itself had been established in that case and the registration remained in place; the claim for costs nevertheless failed for lack of substantiation. See also the news item published by Kifid on this decision. The assessment still depends on the legal basis and substantiation in your file.
What breakdown can you request?
Ask for an overview showing the nature of the work, who carried it out, the date, the time spent, the rate and any external invoices. Ask for an explanation of the point from which the alleged fraud was investigated and why the work was necessary. Also ask how any fixed amounts were calculated.
Split the invoice into recognisable components: regular claim investigation, additional fraud investigation, external expert reports, administration, debt collection and interest. The labels on the invoice are not decisive. What matters is the work done and the applicable legal requirements.
Check whether amounts have already been deducted from a benefit or are also being claimed in another letter. Put all the amounts side by side; double counting happens more often than you might think, because different parties (the insurer, an authorised underwriting agent (known in Dutch as a gevolmachtigde), SODA, a debt collection agency) may write to you about the same item.
| Item | Claimed by | Claimed | Already deducted from benefit | Paid by you | Outstanding according to them | Your position |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Investigation costs of fraud coordinator | SODA, on behalf of the insurer | € 532 | € 0 | € 0 | € 532 | Disputed: no breakdown of hours, standard amount |
| Costs of external investigation agency | Insurer | € 1,250 | € 1,250 | € 0 | € 0 | Disputed: already deducted, yet invoiced again |
| Recovery of benefit previously paid | Insurer | € 2,800 | € 0 | € 0 | € 2,800 | Depends on the fraud question |
| Extrajudicial collection costs | Debt collection agency | € 448 | € 0 | € 0 | € 448 | Disputed: no reminder with a fourteen-day payment period received |
| Interest | Debt collection agency | € 96 | € 0 | € 0 | € 96 | Follows the principal claim |
| Total | € 5,126 | € 1,250 | € 0 | € 3,876 |
May SODA charge additional collection costs?
Collection costs require their own assessment; a percentage or fixed amount is not owed merely because it appears in a payment demand. The basis is set out in Article 6:96 of the Dutch Civil Code (BW). Paragraph 2(c) classifies reasonable costs of obtaining payment out of court as financial loss; paragraph 5 provides that compensation for those costs is further regulated by order in council, namely the Decree on compensation for extrajudicial collection costs (Besluit vergoeding voor buitengerechtelijke incassokosten). Those rules cannot be departed from to the detriment of a consumer debtor.
Paragraph 6 contains the requirement most often breached in practice: if the debtor is a natural person not acting in the course of a profession or business, collection costs are only owed once, after default has occurred, the debtor has been sent a reminder to no avail, requiring payment within a period of fourteen days starting on the day after the reminder, and that reminder has stated the consequences of non-payment, including the compensation that will be claimed. If no such correct reminder was sent, the collection costs are not owed, even if the principal claim turns out to be justified.
Note the connection with the principal claim: the reminder requirement presupposes default, and default presupposes a claim that is due and payable. If you dispute the basis of the claim for costs itself (for example because it has not been established that you deceived the insurer), you are thereby also disputing the basis for the collection costs. In a business relationship, the protection of paragraph 6 and the mandatory rules do not apply in the same way; there, a contractual clause may allow more scope.
Ask on what basis the collection costs are being claimed, when, according to the sender, you went into default and which earlier reminder is meant. Do take any deadline in the letter seriously, however: disputing the claim does not automatically stop interest from accruing or collection from continuing.
How to build a substantive defence
Start with the facts that are not in dispute. Then give your response to each allegation. If a purchase date was copied incorrectly, refer to the original document. If an amount was entered incorrectly, explain the cause and provide the correct supporting evidence. Do not alter existing evidence; keep the original versions.
Then address each cost item. Write, for example, that the necessity, the time spent or the link with the alleged deception is lacking. A reasoned defence is stronger than simply saying ‘I do not agree’. Ask for a response on both points: the fraud allegation as the basis, and the costs.
Record whether you also object to a registration, cancellation of the policy (royement) or recovery of the benefit. Those matters may require a separate letter and separate reasoning. For the investigation stage, also read fraud investigations by the insurer.
Paying under pressure or agreeing a settlement?
A settlement can sometimes be practical, but it must clearly describe what it resolves. Paying investigation costs does not automatically mean that a registration is removed, the policy is reinstated or the original claim is paid after all.
Ask whether the settlement contains an admission and which claims will remain after payment. If you pay an amount while disputing the basis for it, have it assessed beforehand how best to record your position. Writing ‘under protest’ is not a universal solution for all legal consequences.
If you receive a writ of summons (dagvaarding), respond through the proper procedure. An earlier complaint to the insurer does not replace a procedural step. Also have it assessed which party you should address in a complaint or proceedings: the insurer, the collecting party or both, depending on the legal basis.
Advance payments reclaimed
Ask which payments are being reclaimed, on what basis, and why, according to the insurer, the earlier payment was not owed or must be repaid. A fraud allegation does not make every amount immediately payable without further explanation. Your own insurance relationship, a claim under the Motor Insurance Liability Act (WAM) and an earlier settlement may each have different consequences.
Investigation costs and a SODA claim
A letter claiming costs must make clear who the creditor is, what investigation was carried out and what legal basis is relied on. Ask for a breakdown of the work, its necessity and the amount. A standard amount or a reference to SODA does not in itself prove that all costs are reasonable and owed.
Dispute specific inaccuracies in good time and keep proof of your response. Do not sign a payment arrangement without understanding whether you are thereby admitting liability or an amount. An objection to investigation costs should be aligned with your defence against the rejection of the claim and any registration.
Also read about the burden of proof in fraud cases and discontinued advance payments.
Frequently asked questions about investigation costs and SODA
Is a standard amount always unlawful?
No. The amount and the legal basis relied on must be examined. A standard amount does not automatically relieve the creditor of the need to substantiate the claim and the relevant costs.
Does there first have to be a criminal conviction?
Not every civil claim requires a criminal conviction. The civil basis and the evidence must be assessed independently. Equally, a police report alone does not prove that the costs are justified.
Do the investigation costs lapse if I withdraw my claim?
Not automatically. Withdrawing a claim does not necessarily end a dispute about deception and costs that has already arisen. Have it assessed exactly what the insurer is alleging and what the consequences of withdrawal are.
Can I just ask for a breakdown?
Yes, but also state whether you dispute the claim and why you cannot yet respond in full. If necessary, ask for a temporary suspension of collection and ask for confirmation of whether this is granted.
Will a registration in the External Reference Register (EVR) be removed if I pay?
That does not automatically follow from payment. Registration is subject to its own test and duration. Make sure that any agreement on this is set out explicitly in a settlement.
Which documents are needed for legal assistance?
Gather the claim, your statements, the report, the rejection, the letter claiming costs, earlier reminders and letters about registrations. Add original evidence that can help clarify the allegation.
Have the fraud allegation and the costs assessed separately
Have you received a SODA letter or an invoice for investigation costs? Contact Arslan Advocaten. If a previous benefit is also being reclaimed, read about recovery and recourse by the insurer.
Legally reviewed by Onur Arslan, attorney at Arslan Advocaten. Reviewed on 13 September 2026.
Further reading on this topic
- Insurance fraud: consequences, risks and legal assistance
- Burden of proof in insurance fraud: who has to prove what?
- Accused of fraud in a car damage claim: mistake or intent?
