Spanish Banks may refuse to return the floor clause if it believes that it is not opaque

Below is a translation from elpais news yesterday!

What does this really mean?

In our opinion it is yet another way for the banks to pass the buck to others IE The Notarios, Solicitors and translators when you signed the mortgage agreement! as in the banks words all these other people knew the clause was in the deeds!!! Un believable I know but still passing the buck IMO…

If everyone other than you knew there was a floor clause in your agreement and not one of them mentioned it to you at the time of signing then IMO they have all acted to decieve you and the corruption is everywhere!

Therefore in our opinion if you have no grasp of the Spanish language and you have relied on trusting all of the above …if you can answer one simple question then we are 99.9% that sure your Clausula Suelo claim will be valid.

The question you must answer to yourself is this!

Q. Were you advised at the time of signing your mortgage that your mortgage payments would not go down?

Therefore If you were advised of this then you have agreed to the Floor Clause and you have no claim.

However if you can honestly state that at no time were you advised of this then you will have a claim in our opinion… However as the clause is well hidden in your Escritura de Hipotica it will take a solicitor to find the clause… as after all it is very well hidden IE NOT Transparent to a layman.

Translated news text below

The government, the PSOE and Citizens have agreed the mechanism to articulate the return by the banks of the money collected by the land clauses of the mortgages that are abusive or not transparent after the European court ruled against the entities. The executive is preparing a royal decree, which will be approved this Friday, which will force banks to warn all customers with floor clauses. However, entities will not be required to repay the money if they believe the contracts were not opaque. The return must be in cash, unless the client agrees otherwise.
En español

Government, opposition reach deal on “floor clause” refunds for mortgage holders
Guindos remembers that the judicial route for the ground clauses will remain open
The supervisor asks the banks for the impact of the floor clauses on the accounts
The PSOE forces the Government to redesign the decree of the ‘ground clauses’

The text will not be processed as a bill so it will take effect in a short time, according to socialist sources consulted. The speed of the implementation of the mechanism is another key issue for both the Government and the PSOE to avoid the prosecution of a matter that affects 1.4 million customers.

The three-way agreement will allow the compensation mechanism to move forward as a law decree and not as a bill. The issue is important because the bill admits amendments in the parliamentary process and may take more than four months to approve. With the formula of the decree law, if the text is approved this Friday in the Council of Ministers, it should be in force the 20 of February, a month later. From that date, the bank will have three months to notify all customers with floor clauses and close an agreement. If there is no agreement, the client may go to court.
1.4 million claims

With this mechanism is intended to stop the arrival of up to 1.4 million customer complaints with clauses to the courts, which would have blocked justice. Although banks must notify customers, that does not mean that they will pay them the floor clause. “In the event that the entity considers that the return is not appropriate, it will communicate the reasons for its decision, in which case the out-of-court procedure will be terminated,” says the draft decree.

That is, banks that consider that their conditions were easily detectable, as Banco Sabadell maintains, will not have the legal requirement to repay the money. Socialist sources present in the negotiation comment that “an obligation of return to all banks would have been unconstitutional because not all banks are condemned by the Supreme.”

Some banks, such as BBVA, consider that, although they are condemned by the Supreme Court, they have a part of their clients that are financial professionals, notaries or property registrars among other occupations, for which the clause was transparent and perfectly understandable. That is why they consider that they are not obliged to return it. In fact, according to the calculations of the entity, only pay half of the money committed in mortgages with clauses.

In addition to the amount overcharged, the interest for late payment must also be returned. One of the most sensitive issues was how the customer can verify that the total amount offered is correct, since the figure is difficult to calculate. To prevent the homeowner having to give a yes or no quickly, the text offers 15 days to tell the bank whether or not you agree. At this time you can review whether the financial offer is appropriate by consulting with lawyers or consumer organizations.

In order to curb massive demands of new law firms, and encourage a quick and out of court settlement, the rule will establish that the bank cannot be condemned to costs if the client rejects the bank’s offer and the judge offers the same or Less than what the entity gave him. If the court grants you more money than the institution offered, the bank would pay the costs. This judicial cost can be as expensive as the amount of the claim, so banks are not interested in losing the lawsuits.

Another key issue is that compensation be in cash as the first option. However, the bank may offer other products or conditions of the mortgage, reduced to the quota or reduction of the principal, as long as the client signs and consents to this formula.

The Government will create a control body to monitor compliance with the conditions imposed on the banks. It must submit a semi-annual report and may collect additional information from the entities and promote measures if it deems it necessary.

This council will have representatives from the Bar Association, the Council of Consumers, the Ministry of Economy and discussed or negotiated and then accepted by all parties. The agreed time of Justice. The presidency will fall on one of these ministries, probably the one of Justice. It is possible that it also has representatives of the Bank of Spain. Bank responsibility The consumer associations have not been radically opposed, although they do agree to emphasize that “it will be the bank who really decides who and how much extra judicially charge the amounts owed by the floor clauses” As pointed out by OCU. Adicae believes that “the strong pressure of the bank can end up that the extrajudicial system is ineffective”. From Denounciascolectivas.com adds that the system saves money to the banks “that are the ones that have caused the problem and also do not assume responsibilities”. We can said he expects to see the text to have an opinion formed. From Davos, the Minister of Economy, Luis de Guindos, expressed his optimism for the text and commented that “the Government has established a free mechanism that prevents customers from going to The courts, but can always use judicial protection. “According to socialist sources, the reason the text has been postponed twice has been” because the negotiation has been very hard. Many issues that are now in the decree, did not appear before “, according to the deputy Pedro Saura. And he gives as an example to specify the return of interest arrears, that the bank has to notify the client, the tax treatment and the cash payment with the possibility of responding in 15 days, without hurry. “The government did not want these issues in the decree … the pressure of the bank is very strong,” he comments. The government, the PSOE and Citizens were in favor of getting the text out quickly to avoid uncertainty among customers. The ball is on the roof of the banks, and the judges, if more demands come. Entities play a lot from the commercial point of view (customers with mortgages are the best) and reputational.

We have translated this via Google translate free service for information only we do not guarantee the translation however the full article can be found at the link below.

http://economia.elpais.com/economia/2017/01/18/actualidad/1484738837_899935.html

Regards

SBR

Share with:


Leave a Reply