According to the BGH, a separate fee for the disbursement of the agreed loan to the disadvantage of the savers inappropriate. Million customers can now hope for refunds.
The Federal court of justice has declared the “loan fee” the building societies are null and void. A separate fee solely for the payment of the building loan contract agreed to loan a disadvantage savers inappropriate – and therefore, because of General costs would be passed on to the customer, which would normally be paid for with the interest rates, decided by the Supreme court on Tuesday.
For consumer loans set out by the BGH, this already two years ago. In the case of building savings contracts is not applicable, especially since the fee on the totality of the Savers. If the claim is not yet barred, customers can demand the fee back. It can come to substantial amounts. In the BGH case, the fee was two per cent; in the case of a loan of 100 000 Euro in the year 2000, the Euro would be.
the consumer advice centre of North Rhine-Westphalia was Complaining that it was a clause from the terms and conditions of the market leader Schwäbisch Hall. In the meantime, is the fee apparently, across all industry sectors deleted been, in Schwäbisch Hall, already fifteen years ago, when competitors Wüstenrot in the year 2013. Because it is still in many Altverträgen, might result in judgment in significant recoveries. (Ref: XI ZR 552/15)
Who will benefit from the nationwide, approximately 30 million home savings customers from the judgment depends on when the claims become time-barred. Usually period is a three-year; in this case, the consequences remained manageable, because the least because of the low interest rates, comparatively few bauspar loans were obtained. There is some evidence however, that the period shall be extended for ten years, because the austerity-friendly judgment of the Supreme court came as a surprise. So far, the case law was almost unanimously of the admissibility of the loan fee – the bauspar customer had, therefore, no occasion to draw against it before the court.
With a sudden pivot in such a clear case-law adopted by the Supreme court two years ago, a ten-year limitation period, when it came to consumer loans. This should also apply to building loans, customers could have accessed up to the year 2006 back loans demand the fee back. The issue of limitation was actually also on Tuesday on the Federal court schedule, however, the Bausparkasse Wüstenrot had agreed a short time earlier with the plaintiff – presumably to a savings of averting friendly principle of judgment.
According to the permissible degree charges remain against it””. The Supreme court has endorsed it in 2010, because – in the interest of all savers, the sales boost would. In 2017, the much brisantere BGH-proceedings before the building societies, but to the admissibility of the termination of high-interest existing contracts. Just this Tuesday