February 1, 2011, the district court has dismissed a bank customer who requested it enforces the regulations governing billing of intervention costs.
It turns out that the arguments given by the bank that led to this decision are those that we go to there to appeal.
The bank refuses payment for the following reason:
"The definition of response costs is given by the tariff sheets as follows: Account Review anomaly in preventing automatic processing of daily operations "
What really recall the nature of the action:
The bank must pay the customer's orders within the limits of its available supply account.
Therefore, if a write occurs when the account is overdrawn, the transaction is automatically rejected by the computer system.
There is no human intervention.
But the bank may choose to explore the possibility to lend or not the missing funds to the client.
So this " Review accounts anomaly "is about.
The action manager is studying a "credit". Although this study only lasts a split second, the "click" given by the manager, he lends the funds and pays the writing, is the acceptance of credit. The law does not define the minimum time for a credit check.
The bank is entitled to charge such intervention by taking fees, as the intervention costs, transaction fees, cost of forcing, etc.. these terms cover the same reality.
These fees, and no one disagrees, are covered by Article 313-1 of the Consumer Code. They must be included in the overall effective rate.
But the bank refuses to reimburse the costs of intervention. The arguments put forward have convinced the court of first instance.
In reinstating the charges in question in the percentage rate, we arrive at a rate of 164%
We study the best legal follow-up:
-either to appeal the decision if we dispute the charges and ask the reimbursement.
-either lay a criminal complaint against the Director agency to practice usury. (The fine is around 45,000 euros accompanied by a prison sentence).
In both cases, the world will change for the bank.
0 comments:
Post a Comment