This opposition centers on a proposed 250 euro charge per accepted claim, a figure intended to fund the new resolution system devised by the Financial Client Defense Officer, a state-backed authority aimed at transforming how banks, insurers, and investment firms handle customer complaints. Several political groups, including PPPNV, Cs, Junts, and PdeCat, have urged lowering the fee to a range between 100 and 50 euros. They have also proposed alternative payment formulas tied to the situation, arguing that the fee should be waived entirely or in part if the body finds in favor of the customer or when the institution accepts responsibility.
Recent parliamentary discussions show shifts in the bill presented this Wednesday afternoon. The groups PSOE and Unidas Podemos did not advance any concrete changes to the rate. This appears to be a negotiation tactic designed to keep their exact positions obscured during amendment talks. In that spirit, Nadia Calviño, the vice president for economic affairs, has signaled a shift in focus: financing the power behind the bill is one of the most debated topics in both parliamentary settings and public discourse. It is being navigated as a technical matter that can move through the legislative process without destabilizing debates.
The PP has suggested lowering the fee to 100 euros and allowing the competent authority to refund 50 euros to the financial institution if a customer dispute is unresolved. The GDP has proposed removing 50 euros if certain declarations are favorable, with all fees then reimbursed. An alternative plan would cap the agency’s expenses and distribute these costs in proportion to the number of receivables processed by each bank, with an added proposal to reduce the charge by 50 euros. PdeCat has echoed the idea that the bank should pay only when a decision is rendered against it. Cs has also advocated a 50 euro cut. If the receivable amount is lower and there is no penalty, the difference would be returned to the enterprise.
Many parties have put forward different figures. Some propose cutting the charge to reflect the new authority’s role, while others suggest higher caps or specific triggers for reductions. PNV and PdeCat have floated ranges such as 20,000 to 2,000 euros, PP has suggested 1,000 euros, and Cs has recommended 6,000 euros. ERC has called for all decisions by the new authority to be binding or for an alternative limit of 100,000 euros.
controversial rate
Since last year, the flat rate of 250 euros per accepted claim has drawn criticism from various quarters including representatives of the Bank of Spain and several financial employers. Some observers warn that the fixed fee could pressure businesses to settle or discount small requests, potentially triggering a surge in demand for low-cost cases. Proponents argue that the system should be robust yet fair, avoiding abuse and ensuring consistency across claims, and they insist that parliamentary processes can refine the bill if necessary.
Recently, Pablo Hernández de Cos, governor of the Bank of Spain, cautioned lawmakers that the fee could create incentives that distort behavior. He warned about possible conflicts between customers and organizations and proposed aligning incentives with the bill’s core goals. He suggested that the payment structure might be adjusted to reflect different volumes and proportionality, and even the possibility of penalizing negative claims rather than simply counting the claims themselves. Such revisions could encourage desirable conduct while protecting both consumers and financial firms.
Several major groups have shown support for modifying the rate, though it remains unclear whether the proposal will remain compliant with tax rules and public pricing standards. In an official opinion on the draft law, the Council of State noted that the 250 euro rate aligns with the general standard but highlighted important nuances. It underscored that the rate is a sui generis figure and questioned whether it would satisfy proportionality requirements. The Council advised Economics to consider modulations in payment to allow for non-consumer customers to pay part or all of the rate if appropriate, maintaining balance and fairness across the system.