Filing a lawsuit against a financial institution can be expensive, both due to the economic effort involved and its length in time, since these types of processes usually last between 18 and 24 months. But, according to the data of the latest Jurisprudential Study prepared by Asufin (Association of Financial Users), eight out of ten end up being favorable to the customer. The cards called ‘revolving’ -also called renewable credit- and mortgage expenses account for approximately half of the 539 sentences that the courts resolved in the State in 2022.
“These are figures that remain stable compared to other years,” explains economist Antonio Gallardo, one of the authors of the report. After the stoppage caused by the pandemic, judicial decisions regained strength in 2022. In this sense, the position taken by many courts in favor of users since 2018 is being reflected in the cases resolved in the last year. “With the passage of time, and previous jurisprudence, judges have increasingly clear criteria”explains this expert.
A review of the statistics in the report reveals that the number of most frequent procedures, that of cards, hardly increased, which went from 125 in 2021 to 126 the following year. Despite everything, they concentrate “a very high level of litigation.” “The problem is that there have been very different judicial criteria when it comes to establishing what type of interest is classified as usurious in those cards. Now that interest rate has gone up a lot and it’s going to be hard to win cases.” Gallardo refers to the last ruling issued by the Supreme Court in this matter, last February and which establishes that an interest rate of 23.9% APR on ‘revolving’ cards is not usury. At the same time, it set the threshold for this abuse for the first time: six points above the average rate for card loans.
The other great section has to do with mortgages, where there are several cases. There were 273 sentences last year, 27 more than the previous year. Multi-currency mortgages (98), floor clause (29), opening commission (16) and IRPH (13) remain stable, but the big increase comes in the item of mortgage expenses, which goes from 72 to 117. The judgment of the year 2015, by the Supreme Court, in which it was established that it was invalid and abusive for banks to impose all of the formalization expenses on clients, has led to more resolutions in the same direction. “Customers are increasingly clear about what and where to claim”, Gallardo emphasizes. Although the judicial processes accumulate delays due to saturation in the courts, “it is still striking that 14 years after the bursting of the financial bubble, mortgages, in their different categories, are the ones that accumulate the most litigation,” the report reads. .
Dictionary of the most frequent claims
The most frequent cases that reach the courts -usually in the first instance- have to do with bank cards and mortgage loans. Within the first section, the revolving cards. “They function as a line of credit, in which the user can postpone the return of the money by setting a very low monthly fee that is made up of a very low amortization percentage and very high interest. In many cases, the interest is recapitalized, making the debt eternal”, proclaims the report from the Asufin association, which estimates the client’s losses at an average of 9,000 euros. Antonio Gallardo draws attention to the fact that these cases involve, above all, entities such as WiZink and Cetelem, “small banks that are highly specialized in this type of product.”
With regard to mortgages, the resolutions that concern the so-called multidivisa. “These are loans indexed to a foreign currency, usually yen or Swiss francs. The depreciation of the euro against the chosen currency implies an increase in both the installment and the capital, generating serious losses for the borrower”. A hole that, on average, reaches 80,000 euros, according to the Asufin study. For its part, the floor clause, included in variable-interest mortgage loans, establishes a minimum limit on the interest rate so that, even if it falls, the client does not benefit. The average loss can reach 20,000 euros. On the other hand, the cases related to the IRPH They refer to a rate whose acronym -Mortgage Loan Reference Index- refers to an indicator that was used mainly by savings banks in variable-rate mortgages. “It is calculated based on the average APR of the loans granted and the loss is usually around 25,000 euros,” highlights the Asufin report.
Many clients tend to use the claim method before the Bank of Spain, but its resolutions are not binding. However, the body usually requires entities to abide by its opinions even if the law does not require it.
The study underlines that “the change from a more personalized operation to an entirely digital one” leads to branch closures which, in turn, “could lead to a more aggressive commercial policy that harms the relationship with many customers”. “Entities try to sell many financial products and this can mark conflicts with the client in the future”, indicates Antonio Gallardo.
The fact that jurisprudence is increasingly positive for users due to “bad practices by entities” in the first decade of the century, when the crisis that brought greater supervision had not yet exploded, may mean that litigation falls . “But we must not lose sight of the new problems that rising mortgages are generatingwith practices that can be conflicting, such as the linking of products or those that seek to change to improve their interest rate ”, proclaims the Asufin report.