Post by raishamisa2233 on Feb 22, 2024 4:44:40 GMT -5
New judicial blow to the bank. Clients may report the charging of 'surprise commissions', that is, those that were not previously agreed upon and therefore do not appear in the contract. The courts will force the entities to return all the money they have made users pay more. The Court of 1st Instance of Marbella has just forced Banco Popular to return to a client 70% of the maintenance and administration fees for their savings account collected during the last five years. He considers that this percentage has been charged improperly because it did not appear in the contract. final judgment In the court ruling, to whichDigital has had access , it is stated that “in accordance with article of the Criminal Procedure Law, it is proven that the bank has improperly charged these fees for management services, and it is condemns him to repay all the money that he has made him pay more , in application of the general rules and contracts of the Civil Code.
Thus, Popular has been forced to return to the customer of a branch, in the Malaga town of San Pedro , the amount of euros for commissions that were overcharged between March and March 3 December . The defense of the case even states that "many banks charge inflated, illegitimate and irregular commissions in an unjustified manner." The Bank of Spain establishes, in this sense, that credit institutions are free to set their rates. But they can only charge for “actions actually the client . ” And they can Denmark Mobile Number List never force you to pay more than once for the same service. Conditions cannot be changed According to financial sources, in contracts for a defined period of time, with an expiration date (such as deposits or gift accounts), the two parties must fulfill the contract until the end, that is, the bank can only charge for the commissions that appear. in the signed agreement . In contracts for an indefinite period, such as most current accounts, if changes are made, the client must be notified “at least two months before the entry into force of any modification.” The door is opened to complaints The sources to which ECD has had access highlight that bank customers will now have the opportunity to review their savings account contracts.
The same ruling even states that “many settlements are not in accordance with those initially stipulated between the parties at the time of the agreement. This circumstance, they explain, now opens the door for clients to claim collection of amounts overcharged for services not agreed upon . The commissions must appear in the text of the contract , so that the client can check them and decide whether to accept them or not. The entity will also have to send the client the annual summary of the collection of commissions and interests , which will also include the expenses accrued for each service provided to the user during the previous year. Return the money for the floor clauses This judicial blow to the banks joins the sentences that are already condemning them, in recent months, for including abusive clauses in mortgages.
As reported in ECD, entities are losing around 95% of lawsuits in courts and provincial hearings for this reason. Furthermore, most of these rulings in favor of the clients are also forcing the banks to return all the money they have charged them since they signed the contract , and not only from the date of the Supreme Court ruling. The Supreme Court set the date from which the consumer who sees the floor clause of his mortgage loan annulled will be able to recover what was overcharged by the bank: May 9, 2013. It is the day on which the first ruling by the high court that tried this type of clauses. But the judges are positioning themselves, for the most part, in favor of those affected and forcing the entities to return the full amounts to the clients. They argue in the rulings that European Union law “has primacy” over national jurisprudence and present numerous resolutions of the Court of Justice of the EU as support .
Thus, Popular has been forced to return to the customer of a branch, in the Malaga town of San Pedro , the amount of euros for commissions that were overcharged between March and March 3 December . The defense of the case even states that "many banks charge inflated, illegitimate and irregular commissions in an unjustified manner." The Bank of Spain establishes, in this sense, that credit institutions are free to set their rates. But they can only charge for “actions actually the client . ” And they can Denmark Mobile Number List never force you to pay more than once for the same service. Conditions cannot be changed According to financial sources, in contracts for a defined period of time, with an expiration date (such as deposits or gift accounts), the two parties must fulfill the contract until the end, that is, the bank can only charge for the commissions that appear. in the signed agreement . In contracts for an indefinite period, such as most current accounts, if changes are made, the client must be notified “at least two months before the entry into force of any modification.” The door is opened to complaints The sources to which ECD has had access highlight that bank customers will now have the opportunity to review their savings account contracts.
The same ruling even states that “many settlements are not in accordance with those initially stipulated between the parties at the time of the agreement. This circumstance, they explain, now opens the door for clients to claim collection of amounts overcharged for services not agreed upon . The commissions must appear in the text of the contract , so that the client can check them and decide whether to accept them or not. The entity will also have to send the client the annual summary of the collection of commissions and interests , which will also include the expenses accrued for each service provided to the user during the previous year. Return the money for the floor clauses This judicial blow to the banks joins the sentences that are already condemning them, in recent months, for including abusive clauses in mortgages.
As reported in ECD, entities are losing around 95% of lawsuits in courts and provincial hearings for this reason. Furthermore, most of these rulings in favor of the clients are also forcing the banks to return all the money they have charged them since they signed the contract , and not only from the date of the Supreme Court ruling. The Supreme Court set the date from which the consumer who sees the floor clause of his mortgage loan annulled will be able to recover what was overcharged by the bank: May 9, 2013. It is the day on which the first ruling by the high court that tried this type of clauses. But the judges are positioning themselves, for the most part, in favor of those affected and forcing the entities to return the full amounts to the clients. They argue in the rulings that European Union law “has primacy” over national jurisprudence and present numerous resolutions of the Court of Justice of the EU as support .