Dispute Between Notary And Client: Who Pays For The Interpreter At The Notary’s Office?

The following case is a 2020 dispute between a notary and his client before a commission for consumer disputes (see original in Dutch). They disagree as to who has to pay for the interpreter’s services at the notary’s office.

In March 2019 the complainant engaged the notary to execute multiple public instruments for a real-estate transaction. The notary made an appointment for October 9, 2019 at his office. Before the appointment the notary asked his client in writing to confirm whether he wanted the notary to engage an interpreter for the appointment. The notary expressly informed him that the client would have to pay for the interpreter. Keep in mind how easy it is for the notary to call an interpreter for his client, because we’ll see the many problems that this arrangement causes.

On September 25, 2019, the client confirmed by e-mail that he would need an interpreter for the appointment. The client asked how much the interpreter charged per hour and how long the interpreter needed to work at the notary’s office. The notary responded by e-mail of October 1, 2019 that it would take about 30 to 45 minutes and that he would ask the interpreter for his rates. On October 3, 2019 2019, the client asked the notary to send him the notary’s invoice to pay it immediately, including the interpreter’s fees. The notary sent his invoice the next day and included EUR 235.95 in interpreting fees. The client paid the bill in full before the appointment.

The problems start when the interpreter arrives at the notary’s office for the appointment. When they’re all at the notary’s office, the notary finds out that they won’t be needing an interpreter after all. That is, it wasn’t until they were all ready to sign at the notary’s office that the notary found out that his client and his wife didn’t need an interpreter. However, the interpreter was already at the notary’s office. The interpreter, for his part, had already incurred costs for the appointment because he had prepared the reading and translation of the documents and had come over to the notary’s office, though only to be confronted with the news that they no longer needed his services.

The client claims he doesn’t need to pay those EUR 235.95, because the interpreter didn’t render any services when he executed the documents at the notary’s office. As a result, the client asks the notary to reimburse the interpreter’s fees he had paid. Further, the notary also confirmed during execution that the client and his wife didn’t need the interpreter and that he would reimburse EUR 235.95.

Apparently, the notary didn’t keep his promise to reimburse him (in time) so the client filed a complaint with the Netherlands consumer-dispute commission alleging they can’t charge him EUR 235.95 and claiming damages for the harm suffered.

The notary responds that he didn’t deem it improper to charge the interpreter’s fees to his client because the interpreter had spent time in preparing the translation of the documents, before their appointment, and in going to the notary’s office on the date of the appointment to render his services. Although the notary didn’t agree with the client’s posture and claim, after being confronted with his client’s complaint, the notary proceeded to reimburse him the EUR 235.95 euros.

The consumer-dispute commission starts by saying that it’s very reasonable to have the client, not the notary, pay the interpreter. The commission concludes that the notary was reasonable, as could be expected from a reasonable and competent notary. Therefore, it finds for the notary. According to the commission, the notary was very obliging in reimbursing those fees. The commission dismisses the client’s damages claim for lack of sufficient evidence of any harm caused by the notary.

Plus Ultra Takeaways

As a client, you can do multiple things to prevent this kind of problems and disputes with notaries in the Netherlands. Although the notary and client discussed the interpreter’s fees in advance, the notary failed to check in advance whether his client actually needed an interpreter—even though he had months to find out.

Another point is that the client allowed the notary to engage an interpreter for him at the client’s expense. But why would you allow the notary to take control of a service that’s entirely meant for you, not the notary, when at the end of the day, you’re the one who’s paying for it, not the notary? Although perhaps it’s a matter of convenience to have the notary call an interpreter and all you have to do is pay the bill, it’s important to note that, as this case clearly shows, such convenience can quickly turn into inconvenience and costly problems that aren’t easy to solve. So this dispute shows how problems can cause convenience to be very expensive — and no damages for this client.

It further shows that convenience is expensive because in this arrangement the client was confronted with a single price that the notary gave him, thus losing the advantage of optionality by personally requesting multiple proposals. Keep in mind that the notary isn’t responsible for the interpreter’s services and fees, so if there’s any problem, you’re on the losing end, whereas the notary doesn’t have any responsibility at all for his involvement. In a way that’s why the commission thought the notary was “very obliging” because he didn’t have to be helpful. So if you’re responsible anyhow, you’re the one who should decide on everything that you’re responsible for in terms of understanding the language and translation. If you’re the one who’s paying, you’re better positioned to request proposals, choose and engage your own interpreter. What’s more, if you’re the one who chooses and engages, you have more control over the services and have less risk of this type of problems.

Another important point is that the interpreter’s service includes preparation before execution and the transportation to and from the notary’s office. This detail should help you in being well-informed before engaging or allowing someone else to engage an interpreter or translator for you for any formality.

At Plus Ultra we don’t share the commission’s opinion because we don’t think the notary was “very obliging” in reimbursing EUR 235.95 in interpreting fees. First, the client had paid everything in advance. Accordingly, when the notary cancelled the service, his argument was that the EUR 235.95 did not include the interpreter’s preparation and transportation. However, if that wasn’t included then this case is insufficiently clear to call the notary “very obliging.” Further, this begs the question what the total price was going to be upon completion of the service that is, EUR 235.95, plus the preparation money, plus transportation money. For these reasons, Plus Ultra doesn’t believe that the notary was “very obliging” in reimbursing the money, it was simply the right thing to do.

Always check Plus Ultra Legal and Language Tips to prevent any issues and to be well-informed before engaging any notary in the Netherlands. If you’d like to receive the assistance of experts in translations at notary’s offices and related matters, don’t hesitate to contact Plus Ultra.

Thank you very much for visiting. Thank you for your donations, for believing in Plus Ultra and for sharing this with anyone who may find this useful. Because of you, we can continue to help the community at large with free multilingual support and in language, law and tourism and create valuable related content, such as articles and videos. Again, we appreciate your support and hope to see you soon again.

© Plus Ultra Publishing & Legal Translations. All rights reserved.