The Office for Competition and Consumer Protection is effectively opposed to unfair practices of the bank that have undermined the interests of customers. The optimal conclusion of the dispute concerns the secondary issue, i.e. the insurance of a low own contribution, but gives some hope to people charged with mortgage loans in francs.
It turns out that an agreement with the bank (e.g. in the area of unauthorised contractual clauses) can be brought before the court and that a decision can be reached that will actually change something. Winning a bank in court seems a difficult challenge, but such success is attainable.
What is UNWW insurance
Low own contribution insurance (UNWW) is used when the borrower makes a small own contribution, which increases the risk of default. The bank then requests a loan insurance agreement to minimise its own risk.
It turns out that an agreement with the bank (e.g. in the area of unauthorised contractual clauses) can be brought before the court and that a decision can be reached that will actually change something. Winning a bank in court seems a difficult challenge, but such success is attainable.
The paradox here was that the francs obtained further favourable court rulings, but the bank de facto did not respect them, i.e. tried to modify the contested contractual provisions only illusoryly. Only the intervention of the UOKiK made a breakthrough. The Bank announced to allow all customers to sign new contracts without the court's contested contractual provisions and without replacing them with new, similar provisions.
Bank trickery
The principle of contractual freedom is a standard, but this does not mean that the content of the contract can be entirely free. The key concept here is prohibited contractual clauses.
For example, such an illegal record is the recognition that a consumer counterparty (in this case a bank) may unilaterally change the contract without a valid reason indicated in that contract. In the courtroom one can also argue, that e.g. the other party to the contract committed a deception or deliberately used the error second pages. The possibilities exist, but each agreement with the bank is individual.
The case in which UOKiK intervened concerned a fee that was actually for nothing. At one point the course of the franc went up rapidly, and borrowers had to pay not only larger loan instalments, but additional fees for his insurance. Also when they paid off on time. They decided to go to court and it paid off.
The bank accepted the judgment (reimbursed the wrongly charged fee), but at the same time tried to circumvent it. An attempt was made to encourage customers to accept a higher margin or a higher commission to compensate for the bank's increased risk.
The President of UOKiK criticised this strategy in very strong words. According to him, “This practice of the bank has offset the effects of final sentences. The courts considered that the provisions relating to the insurance of a low own contribution were not permitted and the bank replaced them with new, costly collateral for customers.’
As we can read on the UOKiK website, we needed four months of negotiations between that authority and the bank to finally obtain a commitment to stop the use of unauthorised practices.
Credits in francs have become a scourge for many people who feel unfairly cheated by banks. It cannot be assumed that it is easy to challenge a credit agreement before a court, but such a contract can at least be shown to a lawyer. Similar agreements sometimes have weaknesses.