ASUFIN requests protection from the new Ombudsman before the flagrant violation of article 24 of the Constitution to which we attend the consumers who we do not see our effective protection in court guaranteed. It should urge the Government to provide sufficient human and material resources so that repeated abuses such as the expenses of the mortgage, the IRPH or the multi-currency mortgage find a suitable channel and not be crowded in the specialized courts for up to 3 and 4 years. A delay of procedures which ends up dissuading the consumer from claiming.
In this context, strong measures are necessary to defend the interests of the financial consumer, such as the imposition of sanctions and dissuasive surcharges to entities that persist in bad practices and the commercialization of products and services with abusive clauses.
We transferred the new head of the institution that extrajudicial mechanisms are a “patch” As has been shown on numerous occasions: after the arbitration of the preferred ones, the courts were filled with claims and the same happened with the floor clauses, an absolute failure, which led to the establishment of specialized courts, without sufficient material or human resources .
“Although the avalanche of unsolved banking matters accumulates in these courts, and that, as we already fear, the pandemic crisis will bring with it many more, no dissuasive mechanism is articulated that prevents the predisposer from placing abusive clauses or practicing malpractice and that, if they have done so, avoid ending up in court ”, says Patricia Suárez, president of ASUFIN.
Remind the new Ombudsman that this system, in addition, “It is extremely profitable for entities, as it dissuades consumers from claiming due to the slowness of Justice and supposes a covert rescue to financial institutions who see with peace of mind how they will have to return the money after 6 or 7 years to the few consumers who have complained ”. Slow Justice is not Justice, Suárez adds.
After more than 10 years of the financial crisis, there are still no effective alternatives for banking consumers: the resolutions of the Bank of Spain and the CNMV are not binding, the accumulated or collective lawsuits are procedurally complex speaking and further delay the compensation of consumers, financial institutions do not adhere to alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms, etc.
The only solution for the affected person to recover the money is the individual demand, despite the fact that the processes are expensive, painful and time-consuming. And the cost of litigation is also a variable that we have to take into account, not only for the plaintiff, but for the rest of the taxpayers: “We are the citizens who pay, with our taxes, some courts saturated by lawsuits that will end up being favorable to the consumer “, Suárez reminds the new head of the institution.
–
