This legal fight for The ‘swirling’ cards aren’t finished yet. Despite the bank’s theses being supported by the Supreme Court, usury lawsuits will continue to be filed against banks. Arriaga Partners One of the law firms advocating the fight against banking practices reported this Friday that it “will continue to sue banks and ‘revolving’ card issuers for transparency and usury,” and that the latest Supreme Court decision will not stop the allegations. that these cards are marketed “without transparency”.
Supreme Court, a deferred payment card or ‘rotaryIt is usury if the interest charged exceeds the average interest rate for these financial products by more than six percentage points at any time. In its separate resolutions of February 15, the General Assembly examined the determination of the usurper nature of a mortgage loan where the lender was not a credit institution. The initial ruling concerned the case of a client who signed a Visa credit card contract in a ‘revolving’ modality with Barclays Bank in May 2004, charging an interest rate of 23.9% APR.
For Arriaga experts, Spanish legislation dictates that financial institutions have an obligation to provide customers with all necessary information to understand the card’s terms, so the sentence “does not change the defense strategy of clients of Arriaga law firm Associates, which may continue due to lack of information and the lack of transparency of the economic conditions in which they access financing.” demanding the invalidity of the doner’s card contract, “not understanding the continuity of the contractual debt”. Therefore, they affirm that these contracts are characterized by a “lack of transparency”. These arguments have traditionally been accepted as valid in other banking legal disputes, such as foreign currency mortgages and judges’ favoring customers by recalculating loans in euros.
Associated expenses and compound interest mechanics
One of the factors that Arriaga’s lawyers implied in keeping the complaints about ‘spinning’ cards alive is that judges tend to evaluate only the “theoretical economic burden of the card” without factoring in the “theoretical economic burden of the card when verifying the TIN (annual interest rate)”. interest on the money of the card, the costs and commissions undertaken by the payment insurance for the customer, the status of the cash in the ATMs, the delay interest and other matters”.
Despite the undoubted setback that the Supreme Court decision entailed and which filled the banks with satisfaction, they think a new opportunity has opened up at Arriaga to show the true economic burden of every contract. they confirm a submission “and it’s not genuine”.
The Supreme Court decision sparked criticism among plaintiffs, with mentions of 23% rejection of usury in Arriaga “without disproportionate criteria and regulatory justification”. Stop Financial Users Association, AsufinThe ‘revolving’ card is “currently one of the most dangerous financing products a financial consumer can subscribe to”. The situation is more dangerous for families during periods of high interest rates.
Anatosis mechanism
“Most of the APRs the cards are marketed to”rotary“All of their commissions do not include the increasingly common payment protection insurance, nor the dangerous compound interest that creates anatosism,” they explain at Asufin. In practice, non-payment or delay in paying off a loan always has consequences: default or payment of default interest. Thus, the interest itself is Compound interest, or, according to Asufin, the debt amortization mechanism of these cards is “in itself a disproportionate and usurious source of interest.”