Improper inclusion in debtors’ files: how to defend your company’s reputation

Debtors’ files are records of asset information in which data relating to the breach of monetary obligations are recorded. Although they are often associated with the State Tax Administration Agency, the truth is that these files are regularly used by companies and private individuals: financial institutions, supply companies, telecommunications operators or any creditor who wishes to consult the solvency of a potential customer or debtor.

Its existence and use are perfectly legal, as long as the strict requirements established by the regulations on the protection of personal data are met.

However, in practice, there are frequent cases in which the inclusion occurs improperly: for debts that are not true, that are being discussed judicially, or without the legally required procedure having been complied with. In these cases, the affected party has the right to claim the cancellation of the registration and compensation for the damages caused.

I.- Legal and jurisprudential requirements for inclusion in debtors’ files

Inclusion in a debtors’ file is a burdensome measure that publicly exposes the solvency of the affected party. For this reason, Article 20 of Organic Law 3/2018 on Data Protection, Articles 38 and 39 of Royal Decree 1720/2007 on the Protection of Personal Data and the doctrine of the Supreme Court (SSTS of 29 January 2013, 19 November 2014 and Plenary 945/2022 among others) require,  cumulatively, the following requirements, confirmed by the three upholding judgments obtained by this firm in similar cases:

• Certain, overdue and enforceable debt: firstly, it should be noted that it must be an unequivocal and undoubted debt, without its existence or amount having been the subject of an administrative or judicial claim or an alternative dispute resolution procedure. It is not possible to include uncertain, doubtful, non-peaceful or litigious debts, a principle of documentary evidence that contradicts them is sufficient; and if the debtor had already questioned the debt before registration, the inclusion is illegitimate even if the claim succeeds later.
• Maximum period of permanence: the data can only be kept as long as the default persists, with a maximum limit of five years from the maturity of the debt (LO 3/2018) or six years (art. 38 RD 1720/2007), and must be cancelled ex officio after this period.
• Prior order for payment: the creditor must have requested payment from the debtor before the inclusion. The STS (Plenary) 945/2022, of 20 December, confirms that this requirement – art. 38.1.c) RD 1720/2007 – remains in force after LO 3/2018. It is not a mere formal procedure: it avoids including those who, due to carelessness or error on the part of others, have stopped paying without this indicating real insolvency.
• Prior information to the debtor: the creditor must inform the affected party, in the contract or when requesting payment, of the possibility of their data being communicated to a debtors’ file in the event of non-payment. The Supreme Court distinguishes this duty of information from the prior request, as they are autonomous requirements.
• Notification of inclusion: once the registration has been made, the affected party must be notified within a maximum period of 30 days, informing them of their rights of access, rectification, opposition and cancellation, by means of a reliable and auditable means that accredits the sending, with the data remaining blocked during that period.

In addition, the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court prohibits the use of inclusion in a list of defaulters as a pressure measure to settle disputes over the existence or amount of a debt.

When the debt is disputed – because different amounts are claimed, because it is imputed to someone who is not the real debtor, or because there is a pending legal procedure -, the inclusion is illegitimate. The burden of proving compliance with all these requirements always lies with the creditor, so that any doubt must be resolved in favour of the affected party.

From Ayuela Jiménez we have defended several companies that were improperly included in debtors’ files for debts that did not meet the legal requirements set out above. In all cases, we have obtained upholding judgments declaring the existence of an illegitimate interference in the right to honour and condemning the person responsible to cancel the registration and pay compensation.

By way of example, it is worth mentioning the recent Judgment No. 180/2026, of May 6, 2026, of the Court of Instance of Fuenlabrada, which we obtained favorably, where our client was included in the ASNEF-Equifax file for a debt arising from a contract entered into between the defendant and an entity other than our client’s group,  without there being any contractual relationship between the defendant and our client. For this reason, the court declared that the inclusion was not justified and that it constituted an illegitimate interference with the right to honour, condemning the defendant to cancel the registration and pay compensation.

On the other hand, it is worth highlighting Judgment No. 118/2025, of April 22, 2025, of the Court of Instance No. 3 of Fuenlabrada, since the creditor himself maintained a legal claim against our client for the same amount that did not yet have a final judgment. Therefore, the Court concluded that it had not been proven that the debt was liquid, undisputed and unquestionable at the time of ordering the registration, which is why it declared that there was an illegitimate interference in the right to honor and ordered the defendant to cancel the registration and to pay our client the corresponding compensation.

Similarly, when appealing the judgment on appeal, the Provincial Court of Madrid (Twentieth Section) confirmed the judgment of first instance in its Judgment 22/2026, of 22 January, Rec. 896/2025, reiterating that the mere existence of a contractual relationship is not sufficient to take a debt for granted if, from the outset, there are discrepancies on the concepts and the amount claimed,  which prevents the debt from being considered certain, and it is therefore unnecessary to examine the prior order for payment.

II.- Compensation for damages: criteria and amount

The aim of these claims is not only to obtain the cancellation of the undue registration, but also financial compensation for the damage caused, including moral damage.

In accordance with article 9.3 of Organic Law 1/1982, on the civil protection of the right to honour, the existence of damage is presumed whenever the unlawful interference is proven, without the need to prove specific financial damage.

The case law of the Supreme Court has established that the amount of compensation must meet, among other factors, the following criteria:

• The time the affected person has been in the debtors’ file.
• The number of queries made by third parties (banks, service companies, etc.) on the data of the affected person.
• The anguish and damages derived from the steps taken by the affected party to achieve the rectification or cancellation of their data.

It is important to note that, according to consolidated doctrine, neither the small amount of the debt nor the lack of proof of a specific financial damage (such as the denial of a credit) are grounds for reducing or denying compensation. STS 512/2017, of 21 September, expressly stated that the compensation imposed in this type of case must have a “deterrent effect”. Therefore, compensation must have an exemplary and dissuasive effect and never be merely symbolic.

III.- Conclusion

For all these reasons, if your company or you yourself have been included in a debtors’ file for a debt that you consider incorrect, illiquid, not due or that is in dispute, do not hesitate to contact the Ayuela Jiménez law firm. Our experience in data protection procedures and the defence of the right to honour allows us to offer a detailed analysis of each case and a solid defence, aimed not only at the cancellation of the undue registration, but also at obtaining fair and effective compensation for the damages suffered.