Thousands of families can reclaim from their banks the full mortgage costs they paid at signing, including notary fees, registry charges, broker fees, appraisal costs, and a portion of notary expenses, according to legal sources. Even if a mortgage has already been paid off, a borrower can file a claim to recover those costs plus interest. This approach is emphasized by Asufin, a nonprofit association that advocates for financial consumers. They also point out that if a consumer does not file a claim, nothing will be recovered.
Average refund of 1,500 euros
On average, the amount that would be returned by lenders sits around 1,500 euros. Before the Mortgage Law of June 2019, approved by the government with Luis de Guindos leading the Economy Ministry, about eight million borrowers shouldered mortgage-related costs. This backdrop helps illustrate the scale of potential refunds for large groups of customers. For readers in North America, the specifics differ by jurisdiction, but the central idea remains relevant: timely action often matters and keeping accurate records matters as well.
In July 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union issued a ruling that banks must reimburse these costs associated with notary services, gestoría, registry, and appraisal, with the sole exception of the Actos Jurídicos Documentados tax. This ruling set a precedent that guided national courts and shaped interpretations across member states. In the United States and Canada, consumer protections operate under different systems, yet the core principle of seeking reimbursement when improper charges were collected is a common reference point for many advisers and advocates.
European guidelines adopted by the Supreme Court
The European directives were incorporated into national practice through several Supreme Court rulings. In July 2020, the court ruled that notary fees could be refunded at 50 percent, while registry costs and the opening commission could be refunded in full. In October of the same year, the court ordered the complete refund of gestoría costs, and in January 2021 it required the full refund of appraisal costs. These decisions helped establish a clear pattern for how banks should handle various mortgage-related charges. In North American jurisdictions, different rules apply, but the idea of transparent charges and fair cost allocation resonates with many consumer protection discussions. (Asufin)
Extended window for claims
Despite a flood of claims, some banks argued that the five-year period for reclaiming notary and registry costs had expired under the Civil Code. If that were binding, the deadline would have fallen on April 14, 2024, five years after the Supreme Court declared the clause abusive. The pandemic caused a temporary suspension of certain procedural deadlines, which affected counting in some cases. That context matters for anyone pursuing refunds, especially when coordinating with legal counsel across jurisdictions. In late January, the European Court of Justice clarified that the period to recover mortgage costs begins when the consumer discovers the clause is abusive, which opens the door to pursuing claims beyond the earlier date. This nuance means that the timeframe for seeking reimbursement is not fixed by the mortgage signing date alone; the critical trigger is the finding of abusiveness in a final ruling. As a result, there is no rigid expiration for such refunds in the EU, though local rules can vary. (Asufin)
Therefore, the path to recovery does not hinge on when the loan was signed, but on when a court ruling declares the clause invalid. The clock starts at that moment, and the refund obligation persists thereafter. For families outside Spain, similar protections may exist, but the specifics differ by country and must be verified with a local advisor.
Collective action
Asufin notes that a class action achieved in the European system benefits all customers who paid costs to the implicated banks without needing to litigate individually. The association cites a successful action against Kutxabank, Caja España Duero (now Unicaja), ING, and Deutsche Bank as a precedent that broad relief can be available to many affected clients. If a mortgage included an opening commission, that charge could also be reclaimed.
Although the Supreme Court in 2019 stated that the opening commission was not abusive, the European Court of Justice has argued that such charges must be transparent to be valid. This implies that courts must assess whether a borrower could grasp the implications of paying an opening commission and understand that its purpose is to cover research and processing costs of a loan application, according to consumer groups. Other related claims include mortgage-related insurance issues such as single-premium life insurance, which have also featured in disputes.
In many mortgage contracts signed before 2019, borrowers were required not only to obtain life insurance linked to the loan but to pay the entire premium at the moment of signing, a practice that has prompted additional challenges from claimants seeking refunds or reallocation of those costs.
Claims rose 24%
With multiple legal fronts active, the five largest Spanish banks — Santander, BBVA, CaixaBank, Sabadell, and Bankinter — received 681,822 claims in 2023, a 24 percent rise from the previous year. Of these, CaixaBank accounted for 343,852 claims, up 32.7 percent; BBVA saw 167,998 claims, up 11.1 percent; Santander recorded about 88,326 claims, up 15.8 percent. Sabadell had 54,884 claims, a 31 percent increase, and Bankinter reported 26,762 claims, up 25.6 percent. The uptrend reflects rising consumer awareness and persistence in pursuing costs that were charged in error.