PSOE and Unidas Podemos avoid showing their cards to have more room to negotiate the change in the amendments to the Financial Customer Ombudsman
The opposition makes pineapple to lower the fee of 250 euros per claimn with which it was planned that the entities finance the new one Financial Client Defense Authoritywith which the Government aims to revolutionize the resolution system claims from customers to banks, insurers and investment firms, among other entities. So, PP, PNV, Cs, Junts and PdeCat have urged lowering the rate between 100 and 50 eurosdepending on the case, in addition to proposing different formulas so that the entities do not have to pay all or part of the fee in case the new body agrees and rule against the client.
This is how it appears in the amendments to the bill that the parliamentary groups presented this Wednesday afternoon. PSOE and United Podemos have not made any proposal to modify said rate. It is, yes, a negotiating strategy so as not to reveal their cards in the face of the negotiation of the amendments that is now opening. Thus, the economic vice president herself, Nadia Calvinowas opened a few days ago to modify it: “The financing of the authority is one of the issues that has aroused the most comments, both in the parliamentary sphere and in the public sphere, they are issues that of course can be addressed without any problem throughout the parliamentary processing of this bill”.
He PP has proposed lowering the rate to 100 euros and that the authority return 50 euros to the financial institution in the event that its opinion does not agree with the client. He PNV has proposed lowering it to 50 euros and that it be returned in its entirety if the bank receives a favorable pronouncement, and as an alternative, establish a system in which the rate serves exclusively to cover the costs of the Authority, which would be distributed based on the number of claims received by each entity. together has suggested downloading it to 50 eurosas well as the PdeCat, which also urges that the bank only pay if it receives a ruling against it. AND Cswhich also bets on 50 euroshe wants the difference to be returned to the entity if the amount of the claim is lower and he is not sentenced.
On the other hand, many parties have also proposed reduce the amount of the claims below which the decisions of the new authority will be binding. Thus, the PNV and PdeCat have suggested lowering it from 20.000 a 2.000 euros; the PP, to 1.000 euros; y C’s, a 6.000 euros. ERCOn the other hand, it has proposed that all the decisions of the body be binding or, as an alternative, that they be binding for claims of up to 100.000 euros.
controversial rate
From different fields, such as Bank of Spain or financial employersit has been warning since April of last year that the fixed rate of 250 euros per admitted claim could mean a perverse incentive, since entities could accept any claim below that amount because it would be cheaper for them, which in turn could cause a wave of claims. “I believe that our financial system and our society is what mature enough as to avoid those abuses or dysfunctional situations that have been pointed out, but throughout the parliamentary procedure we can address this issue and improve the bill if necessary”, Calviño pointed out.
Related news
A few days ago in Congress, the Governor of the Bank of SpainPablo Hernández de Cos, warned the parliamentary groups that the rate could cause a pull effect that would lead to a “increased conflict” between clients and entities. “A system in which incentives are best aligned with the objectives of the bill -which we believe fits in with the concept of tax, although it would have to be legally checked- it would be to make the proportional rate to unfavorable claims. Some of you have even suggested the possibility that it also depended on the amounts. I think that perhaps more work can be done on this basis. The idea of penalize unfavorable claims and not simply the claims per se, it seems to me that it would generate the incentives that we all want,” he proposed.
The idea was liked by several of the main groups, but it remains to be seen if it is compatible with the tax law and public prices of 1989. In its opinion on the draft government bill, the Council of State endorsed that the rate of 250 euros was in line with said standard, but with nuances. Thus, he warned that it was a “sui generis figure” since “those forced to pay for it would not get anything in return.” In addition, he expressed doubts that it would be adapted to the principle of proportionality, for which reason he advised Economy that it could be “possible, and it could even be convenient, to introduce modulations in the payment of the rate in the case of non-consumer customers, so that they could assume the payment of a part or even the entire amount of the fee”