Banks Barely Feeling the Heat: Few Customers Cash In on Unauthorized Fees Despite Court Ruling
Customers often fail to challenge unauthorized bank fees due to lack of awareness, complexity in dispute resolution processes, or apathy towards small charges. - Bank patrons call for the return of illegitimate charges
Ready to stand up to those sneaky bank fees? Well, think again! Only a small fraction of customers are taking advantage of the consumer-friendly ruling by the Supreme Court (BGH) that invalidated account fees charged under deceptive terms, according to a survey by comparison site Verivox. The shocking figure? A mere 11% of those surveyed have asked for their money back.
The BGH made waves in April 2021 by declaring "consent fiction clauses" in the general terms and conditions of banks and savings banks invalid. Translation: customers were unknowingly charged for changes in account fees because they hadn't actively objected within a certain time frame. With this ruling, many customers had a valid claim to recover unlawfully charged fees.
Half of us should have jumped at the chance!
Verivox CEO Oliver Maier points out that for at least 40% of customers, their current account became more expensive in the three years prior to the ruling. So, all those folks could have scored a refund, but they didn't. Why's that? No bank seems to have obtained proper consent from its customers before the ruling, but it's not entirely clear why customers haven't jumped on this opportunity.
What's the real story here?
According to the survey, here are some possible reasons: nearly a third (34%) didn't demand refunds because they thought they didn't have a valid claim. Over a fifth (23%) found the effort too great to undertake, while 21% were too uncertain whether the ruling applied to them. A small group (14%) figured the amount in question simply wasn't worth the effort. Another 7% each voiced fears of losing their account or jeopardizing their relationship with the bank.
The BGH is now tackling the matter head-on, with a case today to determine whether fees charged by Berlin Sparkasse using a consent fiction clause should be repaid. This time around, the discussion revolves around when claims become time-barred. As for the outcome? Stay tuned!
- Keywords: Federal Court of Justice, Account fee, Bank customer, Verivox, Karlsruhe
- Observations: The low rate of customers claiming unauthorized account fees can be linked to a lack of awareness about the BGH ruling, the perceived complexity and bureaucracy of the process, and a reluctance to take action due to inertia or low financial incentives.
- Details: Inertia or lack of motivation, small financial gains compared to the effort required, uncertain if the ruling applies, required effort not worth it, fear of account termination or damaging business relationship, lack of awareness about the BGH ruling.
EC countries might consider implementing measures to increase awareness and simplify the process for customers seeking vocational training, especially in the field of finance and business, as the survey suggests that many customers do not demand refunds due to perceived complexity and bureaucracy, as well as a lack of motivation. Furthermore, some businesses in the vocational training sector could provide valuable resources and information to help customers understand their rights and ease the process of claiming unauthorized account fees.
