Direct Debit Rejection Fees: Is Your Bank Charging You Twice for the Same Incident?

Legal framework: Law No. 2022-1158 of 16 August 2022 on emergency measures to protect purchasing power, Article 21 – Articles L. 133-26, II bis, D. 133-5, D. 133-6 of the Monetary and Financial Code (code monétaire et financier)

I. The mechanism: how does a direct debit rejected several times work?

1.1 Re-presentation of the direct debit by the creditor

To understand the problem of duplicate fees, you first need to grasp how the SEPA (Single Euro Payments Area) direct debit works technically. Contrary to a common belief, it is not your bank that decides to take money from your account: it is the creditor (your telephone operator, your energy supplier, your insurer, your landlord…) who issues the direct debit order and sends it to your bank through the interbank system.

When this direct debit order arrives on your account and the balance is insufficient, your bank refuses the payment. It then sends a rejection message to the creditor. This is when the first charge arises: your bank bills you a “payment incident” fee, generally between €8 and €20 depending on the institution and the type of account.

But the creditor does not give up. It has not been paid, and its claim remains. In the vast majority of cases, creditors’ IT systems are set up to automatically re-present the direct debit a few days later. This re-presentation generally takes place between 4 and 10 days after the first rejection, sometimes up to 14 days. The aim is simple: to hope that, in the meantime, you will have topped up your account.

If your account has still not been topped up at the time of this second presentation, the bank rejects the direct debit again. And this is where the problem arises: until very recently, almost all French banks charged incident fees a second time, as if it were a new and separate event. Yet it is strictly the same transaction, the same direct debit, issued by the same creditor for the same claim.

This mechanism can even recur a third time, or more, depending on the creditor’s commercial policy. Some telephone operators, for example, are set up to re-present the direct debit up to three times before giving up and moving to amicable or contentious recovery. With each rejection, as long as the account remains insufficiently funded, the bank charges new fees.

1.2 The scale of the problem before the reform

The consumer association UFC-Que Choisir carried out an in-depth investigation into this practice, published in June 2022, which revealed the scale of the phenomenon and triggered legislative awareness. According to this study, French banks collected around €1.8 billion a year in fees linked to rejected direct debits and other payment incidents (excluding cheques). Of this colossal sum, nearly €400 million, or more than 20%, corresponded to duplicates: fees charged several times for one and the same incident.

These €400 million corresponded to no real cost for the banks. The IT processing of a rejected direct debit, whether it is the first or the fifth presentation, uses exactly the same technical resources: a request is received by the interbank system, the account balance is queried, a negative response is returned. The unit processing cost of a rejected direct debit was estimated at around €2. With fees charged between €8 and €20, the profit margin reached 86% according to UFC-Que Choisir, an exceptional rate of return, even in the banking sector.

The comparison with other European countries made this situation all the more shocking. In France, direct debit rejection fees averaged €20. Our European neighbours charged far more moderate rates: €6.90 in Belgium, €2.50 in Italy, and only €1.20 in Germany. This difference was explained neither by differences in processing costs nor by differences in risk, but by a pricing culture specific to the French banking system, which had made incident fees a significant source of revenue.

Even more seriously, the right to a refund of duplicate fees already existed before 2023. Article D. 133-6, paragraph 3 of the Monetary and Financial Code, in its version prior to the reform, provided that “where several payment requests relating to the same payment transaction have been rejected, the payer may ask the payment service provider to refund the fees charged beyond the first rejection”. But this right was conditional on active steps by the customer, who had to identify the duplicates themselves, prove that the different presentations related to the same transaction, and expressly request a refund.

The result: according to the UFC-Que Choisir investigation, 90% of French banks refunded nothing spontaneously, and the same proportion did not even mention the existence of this right in their tariff brochures. Only two institutions practised automatic refunds: La Banque Postale and BRED Banque Populaire. All the other institutions, including the major network banks, left their customers in the dark and quietly collected hundreds of millions of euros in undue fees every year.

This situation had a deeply unequal dimension. Wealthier customers, with regular incomes and comfortable cash buffers, rarely suffered payment incidents. Conversely, the most modest customers, those living on tight budgets and struggling at the end of the month, accumulated rejected direct debits and saw tens, even hundreds, of euros in fees taken from them each year. These fees worsened their financial situation, creating a vicious circle: the more vulnerable you are, the more fees you pay, and the more those fees aggravate your vulnerability.

II. The legal framework: fee caps and the ban on duplicate fees

2.1 The statutory cap per incident: €20 maximum

The Monetary and Financial Code precisely defines what a payment incident is and sets the pricing limits that banks must respect. Article D. 133-5 of the Monetary and Financial Code lays down the definition: “A payment incident is any rejection of a payment order received by the payer’s payment service provider on grounds of lack or insufficiency of funds, whatever the means of payment used.”

This definition is important because it clearly establishes that the incident arises from the lack of funds, and not from the repeated presentation of the payment order. In other words, legally, the incident is unique: it is the insufficiency of funds at the moment the direct debit is presented. The fact that the creditor then re-presents the same direct debit does not create a new incident, but is simply a new attempt to settle the same initial incident.

For payment incidents other than cheques, that is, essentially direct debits, transfers and card payments, Articles L. 133-26, II and D. 133-6, paragraph 1 of the Monetary and Financial Code set a double cap on fees:

First, the fees resulting from a payment incident may not exceed the amount of the rejected payment order. In practical terms, if your telephone operator tries to debit €25 and the direct debit is rejected, the bank cannot charge you more than €25 in fees. If the rejected direct debit is only for €10, the fees are capped at €10.

Second, in any event, the fees may not exceed €20 per incident. Even if the rejected direct debit is for €500, the bank cannot charge more than €20. The €20 cap is therefore an absolute maximum.

It is essential to understand that this €20 must cover all the fees charged in respect of the incident, whatever they are called or however they are justified. Some banks have tried to circumvent this rule by splitting the fees under different names: “direct debit rejection fee”, “intervention commission”, “processing fee”, “postage fee”, and so on. This practice is unlawful. The €20 cap applies globally to all fees linked to a single payment incident.

2.2 The law before 2023: a theoretical but little-known refund

Before the reform came into force on 1 February 2023, French law already provided protection against duplicate fees, but this protection was largely ineffective in practice. Article D. 133-6, paragraph 3 of the Monetary and Financial Code, in its earlier wording, provided: “Where several payment requests relating to the same payment transaction have been rejected, the payer may ask the payment service provider to refund the fees charged beyond the first rejection.”

This provision therefore explicitly recognised that multiple presentations of the same direct debit constituted only one payment transaction, and that only the first rejection could give rise to a charge. But the text had a major weakness: it made the refund conditional on active steps by the customer, who had to “ask” for it. This wording placed the entire burden on the consumer.

In practice, this theoretical protection ran into several considerable obstacles. First, the customer had to be able to identify the duplicates. Yet on a bank statement, transaction descriptions are often terse and value dates may vary. A direct debit re-presented by the same creditor a few days apart is not always immediately recognisable, especially for customers unfamiliar with managing a bank account or facing multiple incidents over the same period.

Next, the customer had to prove that the different presentations did relate to “the same payment transaction”. This evidential requirement could prove delicate. If the amount of the direct debit changed slightly between two presentations (some creditors add late-payment penalties), or if the creditor used different SEPA identifiers, the bank could argue that they were separate transactions. The customer was then in a complex dispute, sometimes needing to obtain supporting documents from the creditor to demonstrate that the transaction was the same.

Finally, and above all, almost all banks stayed silent about the very existence of this right. Tariff brochures, general banking terms and conditions and account statements nowhere mentioned the possibility of requesting a refund of duplicates. Bank advisers were not trained on the issue and never raised it spontaneously. The result: only a tiny minority of customers, the best informed and the most determined, managed to obtain this refund.

The UFC-Que Choisir investigation revealed that 90% of French banks operated no automatic refund and did not inform their customers. There were only two notable exceptions: La Banque Postale and BRED Banque Populaire had put automatic refund systems in place. These two institutions showed that such automation was technically feasible and economically viable, and by contrast revealed the deliberate inertia of the other banks.

This situation created a distortion of competition to the detriment of customers. Two people in exactly the same situation (a direct debit re-presented twice, with two successive rejections) could find themselves in radically different positions depending on their bank. The La Banque Postale customer had their fees refunded automatically, while the customer of a major network bank had to undertake long and uncertain steps to obtain the same result, and most often simply gave up.

2.3 The reform of 16 August 2022: refunds become automatic

Faced with this damning finding, and under pressure from UFC-Que Choisir, which had alerted the public authorities and launched a media campaign, the legislature decided to act. Law No. 2022-1158 of 16 August 2022 on emergency measures to protect purchasing power made a fundamental amendment to the Monetary and Financial Code in its Article 21.

This law inserted a new paragraph (II bis) into Article L. 133-26 of the Monetary and Financial Code, which came into force on 1 February 2023. This text, brief but of considerable scope, now provides: “Where several payment requests relating to the same payment transaction have been rejected, the payment service provider shall refund the user the fees charged in respect of those incidents beyond the amount charged for the first rejection.”

Two words make all the difference: “shall refund”. Where the former regulatory text said that “the payer may ask for a refund”, the new law requires that “the provider shall refund”. The change in wording completely reverses the logic: it is no longer for the customer to ask, it is for the bank to refund. The refund becomes automatic, spontaneous and mandatory.

This development marks a significant break in the philosophy of French banking law. Traditionally, French law favours an approach in which the consumer is expected to know their rights and exercise them actively. The new text adopts a protective approach closer to European standards: protection no longer depends on the individual customer’s vigilance, it is systematically ensured by an obligation borne by the professional.

The scope of this reform goes beyond the simple refund of duplicates. It marks a move towards a more balanced banking relationship, in which the bank can no longer count on its customers’ passivity or ignorance to maintain questionable pricing practices. It requires banks to modernise their IT systems so as to automatically detect re-presentations of the same direct debit and make the corresponding refunds.

Technically, identifying a re-presentation is not complex: every SEPA direct debit carries a unique mandate reference (UMR, for Unique Mandate Reference) and a creditor identifier (ICS, for SEPA Creditor Identifier). When a direct debit is rejected and then re-presented by the same creditor with the same UMR, the bank’s IT system can easily detect that it is a re-presentation. Banks therefore had, well before 2023, the technical means to implement this protection; they simply chose not to do so until the law formally compelled them.

Since 1 February 2023, any bank that continues to charge duplicate fees, that is, one that takes fees when a direct debit already rejected once is re-presented, breaches the provisions of the Monetary and Financial Code. This breach may give rise to administrative sanctions from the French Prudential Supervision and Resolution Authority (Autorité de contrôle prudentiel et de résolution, ACPR), which supervises banking institutions, and entitles the customer to a full refund of the sums wrongly charged.

2.4 Summary table of the legal framework

To make the development of the applicable law easier to follow, here is a summary table setting the former regime alongside the current one:

This table highlights the continuity of certain rules (the €20 cap per incident, the 14-day notice period, the obligation to provide an annual summary) and the break introduced by the reform on the specific question of duplicates. It is on this precise point that the law of 16 August 2022 changed the game, turning a theoretical and largely inoperative right into an effective obligation borne by banks.

III. The bank’s information obligations

3.1 The 14-day notice period

Beyond the cap on fees and the ban on duplicates, the Monetary and Financial Code imposes prior information obligations on banks, which are an important protection for customers. These obligations allow customers to anticipate the charging of fees, to understand where they come from, and possibly to avoid them by regularising their situation before they are actually debited.

Articles L. 312-1-5 and R. 312-1-2 of the Monetary and Financial Code provide that every individual customer (a natural person not acting for professional purposes) must be informed, at least 14 days before they are debited, of the amount and description of the bank charges relating to irregularities or incidents that the institution intends to charge.

This prior information obligation is particularly important. It allows the customer to know, even before the fees are taken, that a payment incident has occurred and that it will generate fees. This 14-day period opens a window of opportunity: the customer can choose to top up their account to avoid further rejections, they can contact their creditor to negotiate an instalment plan or an extension of time to pay, or they can immediately dispute the fees if they consider them unjustified or irregular.

In practice, this information is generally shown on the monthly account statement, in a section dedicated to “upcoming fees” or “transactions awaiting debit”. The account statement is closed on a given date (for example the 30th of the month), and incident fees arising before that date are announced, with actual debit scheduled at least 14 days after the statement closing date. Thus, if your statement is closed on 30 September and mentions direct debit rejection fees of €20, those fees can only actually be debited from 14 October at the earliest.

Some banks go beyond this legal obligation by sending SMS alerts or notifications through their mobile app as soon as a payment incident occurs. These real-time alerts allow the customer to react even faster. However, even in the absence of such alerts, compliance with the 14-day period remains mandatory.

It is important to note that this notice period applies only to irregularity and incident fees, not to other types of bank charges (account maintenance fees, bank card subscription, etc.), which are subject to a different information regime. It does, however, cover all fees linked to payment incidents: rejected direct debits, rejected transfers, intervention commissions, unauthorised overdraft fees, and so on.

Failure to respect this notice period is a breach of the bank’s legal obligations and may justify disputing the fees. If you find that incident fees were taken without prior information or with a period of less than 14 days, you are entitled to request their full refund. This procedural irregularity is independent of the legitimacy of the fees themselves: even if the payment incident is established and the fees comply with the statutory cap, they must be cancelled if they were not preceded by the required information.

3.2 The annual summary of fees

Article L. 314-7 of the Monetary and Financial Code imposes an annual information obligation on banks: every holder of a deposit account, whether an individual or an association, must receive a detailed summary of all the bank fees charged during the year for the management of their account.

This summary document, generally sent at the beginning of the following year (January or February), presents in table form all the fees charged over the past year, distinguishing between the different categories: account maintenance fees, bank card subscriptions, payment incident fees, intervention commissions, interest on authorised overdrafts, and so on. Each category of fees is totalled, and an overall annual amount is shown.

This annual summary is a valuable tool for identifying duplicate rejection fees. Indeed, if you have suffered several rejected direct debits during the year, the summary document lets you see all the corresponding fee lines. You can then spot situations where the same direct debit was rejected several times by checking your account statements for the month concerned and comparing dates, amounts and creditors.

The annual summary also makes you aware of the overall weight of bank fees in your budget. For some customers in financial hardship, the annual amount of incident fees can reach several hundred euros, or even exceed a thousand euros in the most serious cases. This awareness can be the starting point for a dispute, for negotiation with the bank, or for a search for a bank with more moderate charges.

The summary document must also state the applicable caps, in particular for customers in financial vulnerability. If you fall into this category and the annual amount of incident fees exceeds the statutory caps (€25 per month for vulnerable customers, €20 per month and €200 per year for customers who have taken out the specific offer), this reveals a breach by the bank of its obligations and justifies a request for refund of the overpayment.

Finally, this annual summary is an essential piece of evidence in the event of a dispute with your bank. If you need to refer the matter to the banking ombudsman or bring legal proceedings, this official document, drawn up by the bank itself, will be authoritative to demonstrate the total amount of fees charged and to identify any irregularities.

IV. Enhanced protection for customers in financial vulnerability

4.1 The criteria for identifying financial vulnerability

The legislature recognised that payment incidents do not hit all customers uniformly. They mainly affect people with modest and irregular incomes, who live with very thin cash margins and for whom the slightest unforeseen event (an unreimbursed medical expense, an urgent car repair, a delay in the payment of a salary or a welfare benefit) can be enough to trigger a cascade of payment incidents.

For these customers, bank incident fees have a particularly devastating effect. Not only do they worsen an already difficult financial situation, but they create a genuine vicious circle: the €20 fee taken for an incident further reduces the available balance, which makes a new incident more likely, which in turn generates new fees, and so on. Some customers thus find themselves in a spiral in which they pay several tens of euros in fees every month, sinking them ever deeper into hardship.

In response, Article L. 312-1-3 of the Monetary and Financial Code established an enhanced protection regime for customers in financial vulnerability. But it is still necessary to define who falls into this category. The law identifies three criteria, cumulative or alternative, for recognising a customer’s financial vulnerability:

First criterion: the customer has suffered at least five characterised payment incidents or account irregularities in a single month. This criterion is objective and automatic: as soon as the bank records five incidents in a month (rejected direct debits, rejected transfers, declined card payments, cheques issued without funds, etc.), it must recognise the customer as financially vulnerable.

Second criterion: the customer is subject to an over-indebtedness procedure currently being handled by the over-indebtedness commission for individuals (commission de surendettement des particuliers). This criterion covers customers whose over-indebtedness file has been declared admissible by the commission and is under examination, whether it is an amicable procedure or a personal recovery procedure. Vulnerability is recognised for the entire duration of the procedure.

Third criterion: the customer has been registered on the Central Cheque File (Fichier Central des Chèques, FCC) for at least three consecutive months. The FCC is a file managed by the Banque de France that records cheque payment incidents (cheques without funds) and banking bans. A registration of more than three months shows a deteriorated and lasting financial situation, justifying enhanced protection.

An essential point: recognition of financial vulnerability must be automatic. It is for the bank, not the customer, to detect these situations. When one of the three criteria is met, the bank must immediately apply the enhanced protection, without waiting for any request from the customer. If the bank fails to detect the vulnerability or to implement the corresponding protection, it breaches its legal obligations, which may be sanctioned and which entitles the customer to a refund of the fees wrongly charged.

4.2 The reduced caps for vulnerable customers

Once a customer is recognised as being in financial vulnerability, an enhanced capping regime applies automatically. This regime aims to limit the weight of incident fees in the budget of the most vulnerable people and to prevent these fees from becoming a cause of worsening hardship in themselves.

Article L. 312-1-3 of the Monetary and Financial Code provides for two levels of protection, depending on whether or not the customer has taken out the specific banking services offer intended for people in financial vulnerability (which we detail in the next section):

For all customers recognised as being in financial vulnerability, even if they have not taken out the specific offer, bank incident fees of all kinds are capped at €25 per month. This monthly cap of €25 is an absolute maximum: the bank cannot take more than €25 per month in respect of all payment incidents, whatever their nature and however many there are. This cap applies globally, all fees combined: rejected direct debits, rejected transfers, intervention commissions, fees for cheques without funds, interest on unauthorised overdrafts, and so on.

For customers who have taken out the specific banking services offer, the cap is even more protective: €20 per month and €200 per year. The monthly cap thus falls from €25 to €20, and a complementary annual cap of €200 ensures that, even if the customer suffers incidents over several consecutive months, the total amount of fees over the year will not exceed €200.

These reduced caps represent considerable protection. To understand their scope, take a concrete example: a customer in financial vulnerability suffers, in a single month, three rejected direct debits (€20 each at the usual rate), two rejected transfers (€15 each), and ten intervention commissions (€8 each). At standard rates, this customer would have to pay: 3 × 20 + 2 × 15 + 10 × 8 = 60 + 30 + 80 = €170 in fees for a single month. With the financial vulnerability cap, they will pay a maximum of only €25 (or €20 if they have taken out the specific offer). The saving is €145 in a single month.

It is crucial to understand that these caps apply even if the bank has not offered the specific offer to the customer. In other words, the bank’s failure to offer the product does not deprive the customer of the protection: as soon as one of the financial vulnerability criteria is met, the cap of €25 per month applies automatically. If the bank continues to charge fees above this cap, it commits an infringement and must refund the overpayment.

Likewise, if the bank has offered the specific offer and the customer has taken it out, but the bank continues to apply the €25 cap instead of €20, or does not respect the annual cap of €200, it is in breach of contract and of the law. The customer can then claim a refund of the difference.

These reduced caps apply to all incident fees, including duplicate direct debit rejection fees. In other words, even if a duplicate was charged and should normally be refunded under Article L. 133-26, II bis of the Monetary and Financial Code, the monthly cap provides complementary protection: if the total fees for the month exceed €25 (or €20 as the case may be), the excess must also be refunded.

4.3 The specific banking services offer

Beyond the capping of fees, the law requires banks to offer customers in financial vulnerability a specific banking services offer, detailed in Article R. 312-4-3 of the Monetary and Financial Code. This offer aims to give vulnerable customers tools to better control their account and avoid payment incidents.

The specific offer must include the following: a payment card with systematic authorisation, which checks the account balance before each transaction and automatically refuses the payment if the balance is insufficient, thereby avoiding rejections and the corresponding fees; a defined number of SEPA transfers and SEPA direct debits; the ability to make cash deposits and withdrawals; access to remote account consultation tools (mobile app, website); and two bank cheques per month, which make it possible to make large payments even when the account is under strain.

The price of this specific offer is capped by law: it may not exceed €3 per month. This modest price, equivalent to €36 per year, aims to ensure that the offer is accessible to the most modest people. In return, the customer who takes out this offer benefits from the reduced cap of €20 per month and €200 per year for incident fees.

The bank is obliged to offer this specific offer to any customer recognised as being in financial vulnerability. This proposal must be made in writing, clearly and understandably, and must detail the services included, the price, and the advantages in terms of capping incident fees. The customer remains free to accept or refuse the offer, but the bank must offer it.

If the bank fails in its obligation to make the offer, it commits a fault that may engage its liability. In such a case, the customer may not only claim retroactive application of the reduced cap of €20 per month and €200 per year (with a refund of the overpayment), but also, where appropriate, seek damages if the bank’s breach has caused them a separate loss (worsening of their financial situation, registration on the payment incident file, etc.).

The payment card with systematic authorisation deserves particular attention, as it is the central element of the specific offer. Unlike conventional debit cards, which authorise payments even when the balance is insufficient (thereby creating an unauthorised overdraft and incident fees), the card with systematic authorisation checks the available balance in real time before each transaction. If the balance is insufficient, the transaction is declined, which avoids the payment incident and the corresponding fees.

This card has a double advantage: it protects the customer against incident fees linked to card payments, and it helps them to control their budget better by giving them immediate visibility of their ability to pay. The refusal of a card payment, although it may feel unpleasant at the time, is in reality far less penalising than an accepted payment that will then generate incident fees and aggravate the overdraft.

V. What to do if you have been a victim of duplicate fees?

5.1 Check your account statements

The first, indispensable step is to examine your account statements carefully to identify any duplicate rejection fees. This check may seem tedious, but it is essential and may allow you to recover significant sums.

Start by gathering your account statements over a meaningful period. If you have the annual summary of fees that your bank sent you at the beginning of the year, it is an excellent starting point: this document lists all the fees charged over the past year, with their dates and amounts. You can then refer to the corresponding monthly account statements to analyse each incident fee line in detail.

To identify a duplicate, look for rejection fee lines with the following characteristics: they relate to the same creditor (same telephone operator, same energy supplier, same landlord, etc.); they concern identical or very similar amounts; they are only a few days apart (generally between 4 and 14 days); and both were rejected for insufficient funds.

Here is a concrete example of what you might spot on an account statement:

Do not hesitate to go back several years if you suspect recurring duplicates. The limitation period for disputing bank fees is two years from the date they were taken. You can therefore claim a refund of duplicates charged up to two years back.

Once you have identified the duplicates, note them down carefully: date of each rejection, name of the creditor, amount of the rejected direct debit, amount of the fees charged. You can draw up a summary table that will serve as the basis for your claim to the bank.

5.2 Contact your bank adviser

Once the duplicates have been identified, the first step is to contact your bank adviser directly. In many cases, this amicable step is enough to obtain a refund, especially if you can clearly present the evidence of the duplicate.

You can make an appointment at your branch or, if you prefer to keep a written record of your approach, send a message through the secure messaging of your banking app or online customer area. In your message or during your meeting, set out the facts in a factual and precise way: state the dates of the rejections, the name of the creditor, and the amounts of the fees charged. Expressly cite Article L. 133-26, II bis of the Monetary and Financial Code, which has required automatic refund of duplicates since 1 February 2023.

Be courteous but firm: this is not about asking for a goodwill gesture or a favour, but about claiming the application of a mandatory legal provision. The bank has no room for manoeuvre: it must refund duplicates, that is the law.

In most cases, if the duplicate is clearly established, the adviser will make the refund without difficulty. The refund will generally take the form of a credit to your account within a few days. Ask for written confirmation of the refund and keep it carefully.

5.3 Send a written complaint by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt

If your adviser refuses the refund, gives questionable grounds (for example, claiming that the two presentations are separate transactions when it is manifestly the same direct debit), or simply does not respond to your request, you must move on to the next step: the formal written complaint.

Draft a registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt addressed to your bank’s complaints department. This department is separate from your branch and your usual adviser: it is a centralised service, generally at the bank’s head office, which handles disputes and complaints. The contact details of the complaints department are on your bank’s website, in your general banking terms and conditions, or on your account statements.

Your letter must include the following: your full contact details (surname, first name, address) and your account number; a reminder of the precise facts (dates, amounts, creditor concerned); the reference to the legal basis for your request (Article L. 133-26, II bis of the Monetary and Financial Code, arising from Law No. 2022-1158 of 16 August 2022); the express request for refund of the fees wrongly charged, stating the total amount claimed; the response time you are giving the bank (generally 2 months, in line with the statutory complaint-handling period); and finally, a statement that, failing a satisfactory response, you reserve the right to refer the matter to the banking ombudsman and, where appropriate, to the competent courts.

Enclose with your letter copies (never the originals) of the account statements showing the successive rejections and the corresponding fees. If you have supporting documents from the creditor (invoices, letters, etc.) showing that it is indeed the same direct debit, enclose them too.

Keep the acknowledgement of receipt of the registered letter carefully, along with a complete copy of your letter and its enclosures. These documents will be indispensable if you later need to refer the matter to the ombudsman or the judge.

The bank legally has two months to reply. If it does not reply within that time, or if its reply is unsatisfactory (refusal to refund that is unreasoned or based on manifestly unfounded arguments), you can move on to the next step.

5.4 Refer the matter to the banking ombudsman

Referring the matter to the banking ombudsman (médiateur bancaire) is an important and often very effective step. The banking ombudsman is an independent third party, appointed by each banking institution but performing their duties with complete impartiality, responsible for resolving disputes between the bank and its customers amicably. The mediation procedure is free, quick (generally 2 to 3 months), and suspends limitation periods.

You can refer the matter to the banking ombudsman if you have first contacted the bank’s complaints department and that department has not given a satisfactory reply, and if the dispute falls within the ombudsman’s remit (which is the case for disputes over bank fees). The referral must be made within one year of your written complaint to the complaints department.

To refer the matter to the ombudsman, you generally need to complete a form available on your bank’s website or on the website of the banking ombudsman appointed by your institution. Some ombudsmen also accept referrals by post. You will need to set out the facts, attach the supporting documents (your complaint letter, the bank’s reply if it replied, the account statements, etc.), and state your precise refund request.

The ombudsman will examine your file, possibly ask the bank for further explanations, and issue a reasoned opinion. This opinion is not binding: neither you nor the bank is obliged to follow it. In practice, however, banks overwhelmingly follow their ombudsman’s opinions, because these opinions are public and the rate at which the ombudsman’s recommendations are followed is published annually, which is a reputational issue for the institution.

If the ombudsman rules in your favour and recommends a refund of the duplicates, the bank will generally make the refund within the following weeks. If the ombudsman rules against you, you nonetheless keep the option of going to court, because the ombudsman’s opinion has no binding legal authority.

5.5 Bring legal proceedings

If all amicable steps have failed (complaint to the bank, banking mediation) and the amounts at stake justify it, you retain the option of bringing legal proceedings to obtain a refund of the duplicate fees and, where appropriate, compensation for additional loss.

The competent court depends on the amount of your claim. If the amount claimed is less than €10,000, you must bring the case before the Court of First Instance (tribunal judiciaire). If the amount exceeds this threshold, the tribunal judiciaire remains competent but representation by a lawyer becomes mandatory (whereas below €10,000 you can appear in person).

For banking disputes involving modest sums (generally a few hundred euros of duplicates), it is often not worth bringing conventional court proceedings given the costs and the length of the procedure. However, if you have suffered recurring duplicates over a long period, the cumulative amounts have become significant (several thousand euros), and the bank stubbornly refuses to refund despite clear legal grounds, legal action may be justified.

In that case, it is strongly recommended that you be assisted by a lawyer specialising in banking law. The lawyer can analyse your file, assess your chances of success, quantify your loss precisely, and represent you before the court. If you qualify for legal aid (aide juridictionnelle, subject to means), the lawyer’s fees will be borne by the State.

On the merits, your action will be based on the bank’s breach of Article L. 133-26, II bis of the Monetary and Financial Code. You can ask the judge to order the bank to refund in full the duplicates wrongly charged, with statutory interest from the date of each charge. If you can show a separate loss (for example, if the undue fees worsened your overdraft and led to other cascading fees, or if they caused a registration on the payment incident file), you can also seek additional damages.

In the event of a characterised fault by the bank (in particular if it continued to charge duplicates systematically and repeatedly after the law of 16 August 2022 came into force, in full knowledge of the facts), the judge may also impose a harsher award, accompanied where appropriate by damages for abuse of process (résistance abusive).

VI. Practical cases and worked examples

6.1 Example 1: Telephone direct debit rejected twice

Ms D. is a customer of a major network bank. She has a modest income and lives on a tight budget. In March 2024, her €45 Orange telephone subscription is presented for direct debit on the 5th of the month. On that date, her account balance is €30. The bank rejects the direct debit for insufficient funds and charges €20 in rejection fees on 6 March.

Orange, not having been paid, automatically re-presents the same €45 direct debit on 12 March, 7 days later. Ms D. has not been able to top up her account in the meantime, because her next salary is not paid until the 28th of the month. The bank rejects the direct debit again and charges a further €20 in rejection fees on 13 March.

Ms D. checks her account statement at the end of March and sees that she has paid a total of €40 in fees for one and the same telephone direct debit. She searches online and discovers the law of 16 August 2022 prohibiting duplicate fees.

She contacts her bank adviser who, at first, tells her that each rejection was processed and charged in accordance with the tariff schedule. Ms D. insists, citing Article L. 133-26, II bis of the Monetary and Financial Code. The adviser then consults an in-house lawyer and, a few days later, refunds €20 (the second fee charge), with an apology for the error.

Total cost to Ms D.: initially €40, reduced to €20 after her claim, a saving of €20. This sum may seem modest, but for a tight budget it represents nearly half of the monthly telephone subscription.

6.2 Example 2: Customer in financial vulnerability

Mr K. is going through a period of great financial difficulty following a job loss. In April 2024, he accumulates several payment incidents: three direct debits are rejected (home insurance, supplementary health insurance, internet subscription), two transfers are rejected, and he incurs eight intervention commissions for card payments made while his account was already overdrawn.

Under his bank’s standard tariff schedule, Mr K. would have to pay: 3 × €20 (rejected direct debits) + 2 × €15 (rejected transfers) + 8 × €8 (intervention commissions) = 60 + 30 + 64 = €154 in fees for a single month.

Yet Mr K. meets the criteria for financial vulnerability: he suffered more than five payment incidents in the same month. His bank should have automatically detected this situation and applied the cap of €25 per month. Nevertheless, the bank takes the full €154 from him.

Mr K., informed of his rights by a consumer association, sends a registered letter to his bank requesting a refund of the difference between €154 and €25, i.e. €129, and demanding that vulnerable-customer status now be applied to him automatically, together with the offer of the specific banking services package.

The bank, after review, acknowledges its error: its IT system had not correctly detected that the threshold of five incidents had been crossed. It refunds the €129 wrongly charged, regularises Mr K.’s status as a vulnerable customer, and offers him the specific offer at €3 per month with fees capped at €20 per month and €200 per year.

Saving for Mr K.: €129 in one month. Had this situation recurred every month for a year without regularisation, the overpayment would have exceeded €1,500.

6.3 Example 3: Multiple rejections accumulated in a single month

Ms T. is in a difficult financial situation in June 2024. Her rent, of €680, is presented for direct debit on 3 June. The account is insufficiently funded, the direct debit is rejected, and the bank charges €20 (the statutory cap, although the direct debit is for €680). The landlord re-presents the direct debit on 10 June: new rejection, new fees of €20.

At the same time, the €85 EDF direct debit is presented on 7 June and rejected (fees of €20), then re-presented on 14 June and rejected again (fees of €20). Same scenario for the car insurance (€110): rejection on 12 June (fees of €20), re-presentation on 19 June, rejection (fees of €20).

In total, Ms T. suffers six rejected direct debits during June, for total fees of €120. Yet these six rejections actually relate to only three separate transactions (rent, EDF, insurance), each having been re-presented once after a first rejection.

Ms T. should have paid only €60 in fees (3 transactions × €20), not €120. The additional €60 are unlawful duplicates. Moreover, with six incidents in one month, she meets the financial vulnerability criterion and should have automatically benefited from the cap of €25 per month.

Ms T. refers the matter to the banking ombudsman after an amicable complaint fails. The ombudsman finds two breaches by the bank: the charging of duplicates (breach of Article L. 133-26, II bis CMF) and failure to apply the financial vulnerability cap. The ombudsman recommends that the bank refund €95 to Ms T. (€120 charged – €25 vulnerability cap = €95 overpaid), regularise her status, and offer her the specific offer. The bank follows the ombudsman’s opinion and makes the refund within the following three weeks.

This case illustrates how duplicates and the failure to apply the protection for vulnerable customers can accumulate, generating very substantial overpayments for people already in serious financial difficulty.

Conclusion

For years, the practice of duplicate direct debit rejection fees was a considerable source of revenue for French banks, to the detriment of the most vulnerable customers. Nearly €400 million a year was thus wrongly taken, in breach of the principle that a single incident can give rise to only one charge.

The law of 16 August 2022, in force since 1 February 2023, put an end to this logic by imposing on banks an obligation to refund duplicates automatically and spontaneously. This reform marks an important turning point in the protection of banking consumers: it is no longer for the customer to detect abuses and actively dispute them, it is for the bank to comply with the law and refund of its own accord.

If you find duplicate rejection fee lines on your account statements, whether before or after 1 February 2023, you have effective remedies. The amicable approach to your adviser, then to your bank’s complaints department, succeeds in the majority of cases. If it fails, referral to the banking ombudsman, which is free and quick, makes it possible to obtain an independent opinion that will overwhelmingly be followed by the institution. And as a last resort, if the amounts justify it, legal action remains open.

Beyond duplicates, do not forget the enhanced protections you may benefit from if you are in financial vulnerability: a monthly cap on fees of €25 (or €20 with the specific offer), the bank’s obligation to offer you a suitable services package, and secure means of payment to avoid further incidents.

Banking law, long perceived as tilted in favour of financial institutions, is gradually moving towards greater fairness and consumer protection. But these rights only take effect if customers know about them and exercise them. Do not hesitate to check your statements, to question your bank, and to challenge practices that seem abusive to you. You are not alone: consumer associations, ombudsmen and specialist lawyers are there to support you.

Are you a victim of abusive bank fees or overcharging? The firm Le Bot Avocat acts in banking law and banking litigation before all French courts. Contact us to assess your rights and the remedies available.

FAQ: Your Questions on Duplicate Bank Fees