Tuesday, November 8, 2016

BGH loan fee: thousands of Savers, tilting redemption – the Legal Tribune Online request


Ilya Ruvinskij


The many terms and conditions contain the so-called loan fee penalises Savers inappropriate, decided by the Supreme court on Tuesday. Why should a recovery for safety’s sake, hurry up, explained to Ilya Ruvinskij.

The provision in a building savings contract, whereby payment of the loan, a fee in the amount of two percent of the loan amount due, constitutes an unreasonable disadvantage of the consumer in terms of § 307 BGB (German Civil code). The Federal court of justice ruled on Tuesday (Urt. from the 08. November 2016, Az. XI ZR 552/15).

In two other, already-terminated method to the same question of law, the defendant, Wüstenrot Bausparkasse with the plaintiffs, agreed. Against the Bausparkasse Schwäbisch Hall, but the Verbraucherzentrale NRW was successful. Like many other building societies, had set out in your General terms and conditions for bauspar contracts (FIG) a loan fee in the amount of two percent of the loan amount.

due to the judgment of thousands of Savers can claim your money back. Many of them should do until the end of this year, if you want to be on the safe side.

A foreseeable decision?

in 2014, the Supreme court called the editing had tilted charges for loans. In the decision it was said that financial institutions should not shift costs incurred in its own interest, just on the customer (Urt. v. 13.05.2014, Az. XI ZR 405/12, XI ZR 170/13).

as a result of these rulings, the borrower able to claim their paid fees back ten of thousands of them have made use of the possibility.

The consumer protection Association of North Rhine Westphalia found that this should also apply to building loans. A loan fee, he is looked at as not necessary, because the final fee is applicable as an entry fee to get into the System and a fee for the granting of credit. This fee, payable at the conclusion of a construction contract, declared the Supreme court in December 2010, to be admissible, even if the Savers receive no explicit consideration (Urt. v. 07.12.2010, Az. XI ZR 3/10).

In the first and second instance, the consumer advocates failed with this line of reasoning.

lower court: fee legislation

approved in Accordance with the opinion of the higher regional court of Stuttgart, the guiding principles of the bauspar contract, authorize the collection of the contested fees for the Loan. Evidence of their approval by the legislature of the state support in the Form of savings of premiums, but also the inclusion of Loan fees in the calculation of the APRC.

That the loan fee is not refunded in the case of vorfälliger the eradication of the Bausparers back, looked at the OLG also as a disadvantage. Finally, was free the Savers, to pay off before the due date. He would no longer be affected also. Although the effective annual interest rate increases. The nominal sink load total.


No comments:

Post a Comment