The users denounce that the bank is making offers “poisoned” to not pay what is due by the floor clauses

  • The OCU and Facua denounce that the banks try not to return what was collected by ground clauses and warn of “poisoned” offers.
  • “There are even cases in which the only offer is to eliminate the soil without returning absolutely nothing,” said Ruben Sánchez, Facua.
  • Adicae, for its part, asks the government to force financial institutions to send a letter to their own clients saying if they are affected.
  • The Government’s plan provides for the return in three months and that banks only pay costs if the judge forces him to return more than what he offered.
  • The Government postpones the approval of the system for this Friday to recover what was paid for the land clauses.
  • A FUND: And after the ruling of the CJEU … how can you claim the money?

Hipotecas

The OCU and Facua have denounced this Thursday, a day before the Government approves predictably in the Council of Ministers the extrajudicial procedure to return the amounts of the ground clauses, that the banks are making offers to the clients affected by the clauses in their soil. mortgages to avoid returning all the money overcharged by these limits to the historical fall of Euribor.

Facua-Consumidores en Acción has warned of “poisoned” offers. “It was more than foreseeable that the same entities that deceived millions of consumers with their tricky mortgages would try again even though the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) makes it clear that banks have to return absolutely everything they need. They charged more, “Facua spokesman Rubén Sánchez has failed.

Sanchez has stressed that some entities are proposing to some clients to sign documents for which they would renounce going to court in exchange for recovering only part of the money defrauded. “There are even cases in which the only offer is to eliminate the soil without returning absolutely nothing,” he said.

“The solution can not be a negotiation between equals”

"The solution can not be a negotiation between equals"

For its part, the OCU warns that some entities are offering affected customers to change the variable loan with land for a fixed rate loan- GAD Capital. The organization advises those affected not to accept this type of agreement, which usually includes the refusal to take legal action, “with the intention of closing the door to claim the amounts paid for more.”

The Government must impose on the financial entities the remittance of a letter to its own clients OCU also recommends not to sign variable rate loans with a higher initial rate in the first years, because “the rates will remain low in the short term, although they will go up in the medium and long-term. ” Therefore, it advises those who contract a variable rate loan with a “sufficient” margin of savings or income to face the quota rises that almost “certainly” will occur throughout the life of the loan.

The Secretary-General of Adicae, Fernando Herrero, has claimed for his part that the Government “establish guarantees so that all those affected who have floor clauses in their mortgage know and have the opportunity to claim their rights,” he said.

Herrero pointed out that this proposal is “very easy” to carry out since the mechanism approved by the Government ” can impose on financial institutions the referral of a letter to their own customers ” stating that their mortgage account with a floor clause and the mechanisms to which you can go to claim.

The representative of Adicae has reiterated that the mechanism established by the Government “can not be in any case the negotiation of the individual, of the consumer, with the bank, ” as financial institutions “call for negotiations to flagrantly mislead the consumer, make him sign resignations to rights, which by the way are null, and a long etcetera of abuses “. As he has said, the mechanism “can not be a negotiation between equals”.

Three months of the term … and the bank could not pay court costs

Three months of the term ... and the bank could not pay court costs

We do not know if the project that it approves will be a government project or it will be a banking project The representative of the association has denounced that the Government has not contacted the consumers, but has only addressed the banks. “We do not know if the project that it approves will be a government project or it will be a banking project, in this sense, we will be vigilant,” he said.

Herrero pointed out that “what it seems to establish” the first draft of measures of the Government of the last Council of Ministers is that if the consumer has received an offer and has not satisfied him, at the time of opening a new lawsuit if they grant him the same or less there will be a condemnation of costs against the bank, something that “in the actual judicial system itself already exists.”

The Government also contemplates a period of three months to recover the amounts since the client contacts his bank. A period that the Minister of Justice, Rafael Catalá, considers however short because the banks “do not have enough people”.

The OCU, for its part, considers that financial entities, “as interested parties”, should not be in charge of calculating the amounts paid for more. ” Consumers do not have the knowledge or the means to verify these calculations, so they could end up signing agreements without knowing if the calculations are correct.”