Got Your Bank Overcharging? Here's the Updated Timeline to Claim Your Money
Application status for the scheme remain undisclosed by the Commission.
In the realm of finance, banks have been known to levy unlawful fees for quite some time. Following a ruling by the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) four years ago, many customers managed to get a refund. However, the question of the time limit for such claims was left unanswered, until now.
The BGH has cleared the air on the matter, confirming that the standard three-year statute of limitations is applicable. This period begins from the end of the year in which the claim arises, as ruled by the Eleventh Civil Senate in Karlsruhe (case no.: XI ZR 45/24). This timing is irrespective of when customers become aware of the invalidity of the associated clauses.
The decision came after an action by the Federal Association of Consumer Centres against Berlin Sparkasse. In the Sparkasse's terms and conditions, there was a clause known as the consent fiction clause. According to this rule, customers' consent to changes in account fees were deemed given if they did not object within a specified period. Such practices were common in many banks and savings banks. The BGH discredited this practice in April 2021, considering that changes to bank general terms and conditions (GTC) are invalid if they only become effective due to implied consent.
Get Your Cash Back - Knowing Your Limit!
Motivated by the previous decision, many bank customers successfully reclaimed overcharged fees. Initially, there was confusion regarding the time-bar for such claims. The consumer centre had advocated in court that the statute of limitations of three years should only begin when consumers discovered the invalidity of the clause - no earlier than the 2021 BGH ruling.
However, the BGH did not endorse this view. Consumers' awareness of the invalidity of the consent fiction clause is not a prerequisite to commence the statute of limitations. Since there was no legal limbo surrounding the effectiveness of these clauses, consumers could have filed a lawsuit even before the landmark BGH ruling in 2021. The critical factor is when the claims were issued.
Source: ntv.de, awi/dpa
- Federal Court of Justice
- Banks
- Judgments
- Consumer Protection
- Savings Banks
- Consumer Centres
- Legal Questions
- In the light of the updated community policy, consumers may now reconsider their stance on the vocational training courses offered by banks, considering the potential financial benefits that may be derived.
- Despite the recent ruling by the Federal Court of Justice, it's crucial for small businesses to carefully review their bank's terms and conditions, especially those related to finance, to ensure they are not subjected to any hidden fees or charge practices that could hinder their growth and profitability.
