Disappointment, that the floor clauses procedure leaves much to be desired

by Spanish Lawyer - as credited
Hits: 623

The floor clauses procedure leaves much to be desired.

The extrajudicial process for the refund of the floor clauses leaves the consumers defenceless by making stealthy changes to their procedural rights.

When the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled in favor of the total retroactivity of the floor clauses, consumers saw their rights recognized and the opportunity to get back the money they overpaid banks for their mortgages.

The Spanish government prepared an extrajudicial procedure against the clock that provided a 3-month collection period to complete all refunds.

It was presented as a measure that satisfied the consumers’ interests. But nothing could be further from the truth.

There are many black spots in this measure prepared by the government, which regulates the new extrajudicial procedure for the refund of the floor clauses.

Consumer associations and the legal sector brand it to be a trap for consumers and a respite for banks.

So, where is the problem?

Firstly, it is a voluntary procedure and it leaves out a considerable part of banking customers, such as SMEs and self-employed workers.

In addition, it does not take into account previous claims that could have been sent to the banks for these clauses.

Secondly, it is not an urgent action procedure and it is of an exceptional and temporary character.

In addition to that, it does not have any type of control or collection system, and its application starts when banks have not even prepared ahead of time a procedure to handle the demands.

Legally, this rule has many loopholes: it seems to guarantee a quick money pay back to customers, when, in truth, it gives banks a three-month period.

In fact, banks are given a longer moratorium than the one consumers get when they are the debtors, that is to say, three months versus the twenty days they would have.

On the other hand, there is an unfair regulation regarding procedural costs if, after this process, the consumer goes to trial for not being satisfied with the bank proposal.

It establishes that the bank will only pay the full costs of the trial if sentenced to pay back an amount higher than that initially offered to the consumer concerned.

If the Court condemns the bank to a refund equal to or less than the one offered, the client could be forced to pay the costs of the trial, even if there is no procedural bad faith, as it would be mandatory in any case.

In addition, the client is not allowed to file a lawsuit with the bank while processing this extrajudicial procedure.

Therefore, the repayment period (already long) is substantially extended, which is clearly detrimental to the consumer.

Lastly, it should be stressed that this process is only applicable to floor clause claims, and does not include other abusive clauses, such as the use of the IRPH index as an interest rate, the claim of the costs involved in obtaining a mortgage or the abusive interests for delay.

In case of wanting to go to Court with a single demand for all these concepts, the client concerned would have to wait for the resolution of this process, which would greatly delay the refund of the amounts wrongly charged.

Therefore, it seems that the purpose of this procedure is opposite to what it is intended for, i.e., to protect the consumer and enforce a final judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

To dilate in any way this defense would only confirm the worst suspicions about this decree and a more than possible unconstitutionality case.


Please note the information provided in this article is of general interest only and is not to be construed or intended as substitute for professional legal advice.

This article has been copied from the orignal with thanks to its author, Raymundo Larraín Nesbitt, and in line with his conditions of consent because (the author is duly credited). Plagiarizing, whether in whole or in part, this article without crediting the author may result in criminal prosecution.

2009 and 2017 © Raymundo Larraín Nesbitt. All rights reserved.


01 of 22 About Abusive mortgage clauses - Spanish Legal information

02 of 22 About The Great Spanish Mortgage Scandal!

03 of 22 About Spanish banks forced to pay billions in compensation to borrowers

04 of 22 About Making your claim - the process and cost

05 of 22 About Key information you require about your past and future borrowing from Spanish banks

06 of 22 About Dissapointment, that the floor clauses procedure leaves much to be desired

07 of 22 About Briefly, your right to reclaim

08 of 22 About Eaten alive - by abusive mortgage 'set up' costs.

09 of 22 About Floor-clauses - 'clausula suelo. - a history

10 of 22 About Lifetime Loans or Reverse Mortgages in Spain Explained

11 of 22 Advice to Struggling Mortgage Borrowers in Spain

12 of 22 A warning about Spanish Mortgage Loans: Beware of Abusive Clauses – 8th January 2012

13 of 22 An overview of Spanish Mortgage Loans: An Overview – 21st February 2012

14 of 22 About Bank Repossessions in Spain – 21st February 2014

15 of 22 About Spain's Bad Debtor’s List (‘Fichero de Morosos’) – 8th April 2014

16 of 22 About Spanish Creditors Pursuing Debts Abroad – 8th May 2014

17 of 22 Crucially Dación en Pago explained, or, How to Hand Back the Keys – 8th December 2014

18 of 22 Report about of how the European Court of Justice Slams Floor Clauses (‘Cláusulas Suelo’) – 27th December 2016

19 of 22 Warning, that buyers in Spain from the British Isles struggle to recover refunds due to them

20 of 22 Warning, that English speaking clients of Spanish Banks have been systematically cheated for years

21 of 22 Warning, that CJEU conclusively overturns the floor clauses

22 of 22 Warning, that EURIBOR - the promises at the heart of the Spanish Bank deception

Leave your comments

Post comment as a guest

terms and conditions.