Frankfurt In the dispute over possible repayments after the increase in account prices, the North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW) consumer advice center is taking the matter to court. She is suing the district court in Düsseldorf against the Sparkasse am Niederrhein. The consumer advice center is thus having a legal check as to whether the savings bank from Moers is correctly implementing a decision by the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) on the general terms and conditions (GTC) of credit institutions.
The savings bank is adapting its general terms and conditions to the BGH ruling in accordance with the consumer advice center in North Rhine-Westphalia. “At the same time, however, the financial institution refuses to pay back illegally charged fees to those affected on the grounds that the BGH judgment is only legally binding for the Postbank defendant there and its customers.” In order to help the affected customers to their rights, a lawsuit was filed .
At the end of April, the highest German civil court ruled that financial institutions must obtain the consent of their customers if there are changes to the terms and conditions, for example price increases (Az. I ZR 26/20). The consumer center federal association had sued the Postbank.
Up until the verdict, banks and savings banks had usually increased the fees through clauses. After that, they assumed that customers would tacitly consent if they did not object to a change within two months.
Top jobs of the day
Find the best jobs now and
be notified by email.
With the BGH decision, these clauses are no longer valid. Financial institutions must now ask their customers to agree to the current fees. In addition, consumers can reclaim fees charged by credit institutions without their explicit consent. Since very similar general terms and conditions are used in the German banking industry, the BGH decision is considered to be decisive for the entire industry.
Adjust terms and conditions, but do not refund any fees: consumer advice center criticizes contradictory behavior
Customers of the Sparkasse am Niederrhein also demanded back fees – but in vain. In a letter from the Sparkasse in response to the customer’s claim for reimbursement, it says: The BGH ruling does not apply to the Sparkasse am Niederrhein, “because we use the Sparkasse terms and conditions”.
The consumer center NRW criticizes the approach of the money house as contradictory. “As we know from letters from those affected, the bank denies that the BGH decision also applies to them and continues to refer to their old terms and conditions,” says the financial expert at the consumer center, David Riechmann. At the same time, the financial institution is already sending its customers new terms and conditions that have been adapted to the court ruling. “Such an approach is difficult to convey.” The Sparkasse did not want to comment on the Handelsblatt request.
In its letter, however, the money house not only refers to its terms and conditions. The customers concerned would have continued to use their account in the knowledge of the statement of account, i.e. the account fees. “This shows approval for the calculation of the respective costs.” In addition, a claim for reimbursement is ruled out because the Sparkasse is entitled to offset the resulting expenses as counterclaims through the use of the account.
It is questionable whether the savings banks will be successful with their arguments. The consumer center NRW refers to an arbitration procedure of the German Savings Banks and Giro Association. The ombudsman found that the wording on price adjustments in the Sparkasse general terms and conditions was almost identical to the wording in the Postbank general terms and conditions. The fundamental decisions of the BGH are therefore decisive for practice.
The Baden-Württemberg consumer advice center is also suing because of the implementation of the BGH ruling. She is taking legal action against three cooperative banks. Among other things, it is about the questions of whether money houses are allowed to terminate accounts if customers insist on the repayment of fees, whether customers have to calculate the reimbursement claim themselves and whether a one-time withdrawal of money already corresponds to approval of contract changes.
More: Dispute over interest payments: consumer advocates accuse savings banks of gambling on the statute of limitations on customer claims.