A common worry among applicants: "if I send a Notice of Default, won't that give the IND another six weeks to decide?" No. The original Awb 4:13 term has already passed; that is the precondition for sending the Notice in the first place. What the Notice does is start a second, 14-day clock under Awb 4:17(3). At the end of that second clock, the daily penalty begins. The original term does not reset.
The Notice starts a new 14-day clock · the original term does not reset
There are two clocks in play, and they are sequential, not alternative.
| Clock | Length | Statute | What it does |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock 1: the statutory term | Procedure-specific (3, 6, 9, 12 months) | Awb 4:13 + Vw 25 / Vw 42 / RWN 9(4) | The authority must decide within this period. |
| Clock 2: the Notice window | 14 days | Awb 4:17(3) | If no decision arrives, the daily penalty begins. |
| Clock 3: the daily penalty | 42 days, capped at €1,442 | Awb 4:17(2) | Daily penalty accrues automatically. |
| Clock 4: the court route | Open after the daily penalty cap | Awb 6:12 | Direct court appeal against the failure to decide. |
The Notice does not pause anything. It starts the next clock in a chain that ends in money owed and a court order.
Three reasons, all real but all incorrect when examined.
Sending a Notice of Default does not give the authority more time. It starts a separate, 14-day procedural clock that ends in financial consequence. The original statutory term has already been breached; the Notice is the procedural response to that breach. Once the 14-day window expires without a decision, the daily penalty begins automatically and the court route opens.
Every Notice we draft cites Awb 4:13 (the breached term) plus Awb 4:17 (the 14-day window) plus the procedure-specific source (Vw 25 / Vw 42 / RWN 9(4)). This makes the two-clocks structure explicit on the face of the letter, which discourages the authority from arguing in subsequent correspondence that the Notice was procedurally unclear.