Over-lending may be at issue if a lender advanced more money than you could responsibly bear. The assessment looks at your financial situation and the applicable standards at the time the loan was granted. The fact that you are struggling to pay today therefore does not automatically prove that the original loan was irresponsible.
Nederlands: Lees dit artikel in het Nederlands: Overkreditering en de zorgplicht bij een te hoge lening
Türkçe: Bu makaleyi Türkçe okuyun: Aşırı kredilendirme ve fazla yüksek kredide özen yükümlülüğü
A possible breach of the duty of care calls for an examination of the application file: which income, outgoings and existing debts were known, or should have been investigated? It must then be established whether an error caused loss and how that loss is to be calculated. The conclusion that the entire loan simply lapses is usually drawn too quickly.
This blog is aimed at consumers and, where appropriate, business owners who want the lending decision reviewed. Banks and other lenders may be the opposing party. The aim is to establish whether your payment difficulties also amount to a legal credit dispute and which documents are needed for that.
Payment difficulties and over-lending are not the same thing
A loan may have been affordable at the outset, while dismissal, illness, divorce or a loss of turnover followed later. That may call for a payment arrangement, restructuring or a review of the lender’s later conduct. It does not in itself prove that the bank acted wrongly when the application was made.
Conversely, a problem may already have existed when the loan was granted that only became clearly visible later. For example, where structural outgoings were not taken into account, income was set too high or an existing debt was left out of the calculation. The right question is then what the lender knew at the time or should reasonably have investigated.
So draw up two timelines: your financial situation at the time of the application and the events that followed. Note when arrears began and which change preceded them. That distinction helps prevent a complaint from resting solely on the current outcome, whereas the legal criticism actually concerns an earlier decision point.
Which duty of care is examined
For consumer lending, Article 4:34 of the Financial Supervision Act (Wft), among other provisions, contains rules to prevent over-lending. A duty of care under civil law may also play a role. The precise obligations depend on the product, the period, the provider and the circumstances. A mortgage is not assessed against the same standards on every point as consumer credit.
The investigation is not only about collecting documents, but also about assessing them responsibly. A completed application form does not automatically make credit responsible. At the same time, a later difference of opinion does not in itself mean that the lender breached a standard. The calculation and the standard applicable at the time must be compared side by side.
Kifid, the Dutch Financial Services Complaints Tribunal, gives a brief explanation of the role of historical affordability and possible loss in the case of excessive credit granted. A specific claim then requires an assessment of your own data and the applicable standards.
The moment the loan was granted matters
Standards and practices change. A loan from an earlier period cannot be assessed solely with today’s calculation tool or table. So gather the dates of the application, the offer, the acceptance and the payout. Where there were several increases or amendments, there may be several assessment moments.
Investigate which information was available at that time. Think of payslips, annual income statements, fixed outgoings, maintenance, other loans and the family situation. Changes already known for the near future may also be relevant, depending on the circumstances. A change that nobody could reasonably have foreseen at the time will not simply be attributed to the lender with hindsight.
When refinancing, it is important to know which part replaced an existing debt and which part provided additional credit. Comparing only the old and new monthly payments can be misleading if the term was extended considerably or other costs were added. So set out the amounts, interest, repayment and term side by side.
Which income and outgoings need to be examined
A reconstruction starts with the data used for the credit assessment. Check the net or gross income, fixed or temporary components and the way in which variable income was taken into account. For business owners, annual accounts, tax data and the sustainability of income may play a role.
On the outgoings side, housing costs, existing financing, maintenance and other structural obligations may be relevant. The applicable standard determines how that data is processed. Not every actual expense necessarily carries exactly the same weight in every calculation. An expert must explain why a missed item makes a legal difference.
Also keep the application form as it was actually submitted. If it shows different amounts from your supporting documents, you need to establish how that discrepancy arose. Do not create a new reconstruction of the application that selects favourable data after the event. A credible file shows both supporting and unfavourable facts.
A family loan alongside a bank loan
Money from parents may have been stated as your own contribution in a financing application, while repayment had in fact been agreed. That can affect the assessment if the lender should have taken that obligation into account. First, however, it must be established that a loan actually existed and what information the lender had about it.
Keep the family agreement, repayment arrangements and communication with the adviser. A statement that the money was a gift, while something else was agreed privately, calls for careful legal assessment. Contradictory documents must be explained; they may have consequences for your own position and for the assessment of the lender.
Have the civil claim within the family and the credit complaint worked out separately. The existence of a debt to your parents does not automatically mean that the bank is liable. More about the original arrangement can be found under family loan or gift.
A BKR check is not the whole affordability test
A credit registration can provide information about existing obligations and payment history. Checking it, however, is not the same as a full assessment of income and outgoings. An applicant without a negative registration can also be given a loan that is financially too heavy. Conversely, a registration does not in itself prove that every loan granted was unlawful.
Check which information was available at the time of the application and what the lender did with it. Where necessary, request the historical application file. A current credit overview does not always show exactly which data was visible years earlier. The original documents and correspondence can therefore be important.
A dispute about over-lending and a request to remove a BKR registration are different routes. They may run in parallel, but one outcome does not automatically follow from the other. For registration questions, we refer you to correcting or removing a BKR registration.
What if your own information was incorrect
A borrower must answer relevant questions carefully and truthfully. If income was overstated or debts were concealed, that may affect the complaint. It is then important to examine what information was provided, who filled in the form and what checks could be expected of the lender.
Your own mistakes do not automatically rule out a claim in every situation, but they may be relevant to liability, the causal link or contributory negligence. A file must take that possibility into account honestly. Supplying only the passages that make the lender look bad hinders a reliable assessment.
So also keep correspondence in which you supplied or corrected data. If an adviser filled in the amounts, record what information you gave that adviser and what you received for verification. The role of an intermediary may raise a separate question alongside that of the lender.
Which loss can be claimed
Once an error has been established, it must be determined what loss it caused. That requires a comparison with the situation in which the lender had acted responsibly. If less credit should have been granted, then not all interest paid or the entire principal is automatically loss. The calculation must match the specific criticism.
Examine which costs are linked to the irresponsible part and which amounts would have been owed even without the error. When refinancing, for example, an existing loan may already have been in place. The loss analysis must prevent the same costs from being claimed twice, or the capital received and used from being left out of the picture without explanation.
Consequential loss also requires substantiation of causation and extent. A forced sale, collection costs or other financial consequences cannot be attributed automatically to over-lending on the basis of the date alone. Gather evidence of events and alternative causes. A lawyer can determine which items are legally defensible.
An example of the right question to investigate
Suppose a consumer already had a fixed maintenance obligation when taking out a personal loan. The file does mention that obligation, but the calculation does not show that it was taken into account. A concrete question then is whether the standard and the calculation required a lower maximum loan.
That is stronger than merely claiming that the monthly payment feels too high in hindsight. It must then be examined what the correct calculation would have produced and what loss is linked to any excess. Other data may also affect the outcome. This is a fictitious investigation scenario, not a prediction of liability.
If income only fell two years later because of an unforeseen dismissal, the question to investigate is different. Perhaps the original assessment was responsible and the current problem concerns an arrangement or a collection measure. The facts therefore determine which route makes sense and whether an over-lending claim fits.
A business loan requires a separate assessment
A bv or business owner cannot simply invoke the same consumer protection as a private individual. With business financing, contractual obligations, the provision of information, expertise and the nature of the relationship all play a role, among other things. The term “duty of care” is not a uniform standard that means exactly the same for every loan.
For a self-employed professional (zzp'er), the distinction can be particularly important. Was the credit taken out for the business or for private use? Who is named as the borrower and how was the money used? A business label on a form is not always the only relevant fact, but neither is it something you can ignore without investigation.
Where business credit has been terminated, the focus may also be on the termination and the notice given, rather than on the original lending. For that, read the bank or lender is calling in the loan. A good complaint states which conduct at which moment is being criticised.
Requesting the file and formulating your complaint
Request the credit agreement, the application data, the income and outgoings data used and the substantiation of the credit assessment. State which information you need to understand the decision. A subject access request for personal data and a request for contractual substantiation are not the same instrument on every point.
In the complaint, describe specifically what you believe is missing or incorrect. For example, an existing debt, an incorrect income figure or a structural obligation that was not taken into account. Attach your evidence and ask for a substantive response and calculation. Merely using the word over-lending gives the lender little to respond to in a targeted way.
Also ask for a suitable temporary solution for current payment difficulties. In doing so you do not necessarily accept every aspect of the credit dispute, but the wording must be clear. Filing a complaint does not in itself suspend the loan or collection. So keep a separate eye on your ongoing obligations and any deadlines.
Complaints route, limitation period and choice of procedure
Depending on the service provider and the product, a complaint to Kifid may be possible once the internal procedure has been completed. Consumers and business owners are not subject to the same admission requirements on every point. Check membership, the correct forum and the time limits. Going to court may be another route.
The choice can have consequences for evidence, costs and later options. Also discuss whether a binding ruling is requested and what that means. A general expectation that you can put the case to the court again in full after any outcome is incorrect. Our explanation of Kifid covers that trade-off.
The limitation period and any duty to complain must be assessed in good time. The date on which you became sufficiently aware of the loss and possible liability may be relevant, but the precise test depends on the file. Do not wait for advice until all old documents have been found if a time limit may already be running.
Refinancing and credit increases: assess every decision point
A credit file sometimes contains more than the original application. You later withdrew additional money, had the limit raised or consolidated several loans. For each change, examine whether there was a new assessment moment and which financial data was available at that time.
That distinction is important for both the criticism and the loss. An original loan may have been responsible while a later increase raises questions. Conversely, a problem with the first loan does not simply prove that every later action contained the same error.
So draw up a table for your own file with the application date, old balance, new credit amount, debts repaid and any additional money paid out. Set the income, housing costs and other obligations at that time alongside it. This shows whether refinancing actually reduced the monthly payments or mainly created extra spending room.
Also check costs and term. A lower monthly amount may go hand in hand with a longer repayment period. That is not in itself evidence of over-lending, but it is information that belongs in the assessment of the product and its consequences. Keep any offers and comparisons provided at the time.
If several providers were involved, keep their conduct separate. The party that granted an old loan is not automatically responsible for a later increase by another. A clear delineation helps determine against whom a complaint can be directed and prevents loss from being attributed to several parties without explanation.
Would you like us to investigate whether you were over-lent? See dispute with a bank or lender.
Related topics
Frequently asked questions
Do payment arrears prove that I borrowed too much?
No. Arrears can arise from later circumstances. For over-lending, the question is whether granting the loan was responsible at the time, based on the data and standards relevant then. So distinguish between the original assessment and later changes in income or expenditure.
Can I stop repaying as soon as I file a complaint?
A complaint does not automatically suspend payment. Stopping unilaterally can lead to new arrears, costs and other measures. Have it assessed which obligations continue to apply and, if necessary, ask for a temporary arrangement. Keep written confirmation if the lender agrees to it.
Is the entire loan written off if the duty of care was breached?
That does not follow automatically. First, the error, the causal link and the loss must be established. The appropriate remedy and calculation depend on the file. The capital received and the situation without the error must be taken into account in the assessment.
Can an old loan still be investigated?
Yes, but the availability of evidence and time limits may impose restrictions. Gather the original application, contract documents, income data and correspondence. Have the limitation period and any duty to complain assessed straight away. Old standards must be distinguished from the rules that apply today.
Can a non-bank lender also be held liable?
That is possible where relevant obligations rest on that provider and the conditions for a claim are met. The precise standard depends on the product, the period and the provider’s capacity. The absence of a banking licence or the name credit company does not in itself amount to a complete liability analysis.
What is the most important preparation for a first meeting?
Draw up a timeline of the application, changes and how the problems arose. Add the credit agreement, your income and outgoings at the time and your current balance. Note which specific piece of data you believe was assessed incorrectly. This allows a targeted investigation of whether a legal credit dispute is plausible.
Have your credit granting investigated
Arslan Advocaten can assess whether your file warrants further investigation into over-lending, another duty-of-care issue or a dispute about subsequent debt collection. Contact us with the key documents and any deadlines. For separate discussions about amounts, you will also find an explanation of incorrect interest and credit costs.
Written by Onur Arslan, attorney at Arslan Advocaten and responsible within the firm for the financial practice: credit registrations, loans and disputes with lenders. Registered in the specialisation register of the Netherlands Bar for employment law and personal injury. Content reviewed on 12 September 2026 against the statutory text on wetten.overheid.nl and the cited judgments on rechtspraak.nl.
