They allege as justification for rejecting the refund that customer could return to analyze the conditions before a novation or subrogation, you have it all by the middle of the CNN.
Banks have found a loophole to avoid having to take back all the money they should refund to customers affected by the soil in a group of mortgage terms: those that have registered a change in their conditions after being awarded for the first time. Most of the bodies are rejecting requests of those who carried out an innovation - change in capital or the term- or a subrogation - transfer credit to another bank- considering that person she was perfectly aware of the limitation of the interests.
Since the Ministry of Finance launched the out-of-court procedure with which it was intended to solve this conflict, the banks have submitted a response similar to customers who have made some registry changes: refuses the money-back charged more in the 'soil' because the mortgage "had full knowledge of the existence and the scope" clause, that is worded "in a way clear», concrete and understandable», argue.
.
In the financial sector justify the position claiming that it is from mortgages which have been renegotiated after be constituted, the client was able to realize the 'soil'. This is happening with the missives that some large organizations are referring to those affected. BBVA recognizes that a novation or subrogation «analysed if there was a single negotiation with the entity that had knowledge of the ground clause and accepted it freely», in which case «not is back». CaixaBank, where also applied this criterion, He explains that to vary the conditions of a loan means that "clauses have been renegotiated and the consumer knows their conditions». This entity clarifies that in any case they analyze claims case-by-case basis, like BBVA.
The problem is facing those workers affected by this negative is that many of them were the worst passed it with mortgages during the crisis. In fact, they changed the conditions of them starting from 2009 -precisely when activated the 'soil' to quickly go down the euribor- to cope with the inability to assume the high fees that they paid. The extension of time limits, the restructuring of the debt or the qualifying periods allowed to better cope with these commitments.
Equal right to claim
«Your clause exceeds the transparency control». This is the argument that almost all large entities sprinkled by the resolution of the Court of Justice of the European Union (EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE) They allege generically to customers to avoid the return. The most reluctant from the beginning to make the refund, as Popular or Sabadell, They also added as it causes the registry changes, among others. «The Bank has no legal obligation to justify this rejection», remember the lawyer Fernando Zunzunegui, those who consider that a novation or subrogation «does not preclude the request for an annulment and the refund claim».
Accumulate other cases in which is denied return due to a change in the holder of the mortgage, When is the loan cancelled. For now, No Bank has offered data on refunds, with the exception of Bankia, the only one that, next BMN, opted for the generalized return. The organization headed by José Ignacio Goirigolzarri had returned until mid-August 186 million to 37.000 customers.
Waiting for the Monitoring Committee to the Ministry of economy approved in May to evaluate these cases, will not be until well into the autumn when to know the conclusions of the analysis on returns. However, in the sector include that, After the initial avalanche of claims, the money earmarked for this purpose shall be less than the from the maximum provisions carried out by the entities, that would total as a whole the 4.000 millones.
.