Verdict: BGH tipping fee savings loans

Bausparer who have paid a fee for the use of their loan may hope to get their money back. The Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) said appropriate clauses inadmissible.

The Federal Court (BGH) in Karlsruhe flipped the earlier raised by many building societies charge for building loans. Loan fees were solely the administrative burden on building societies and should not be passed on to customers, therefore, according to the announced on Tuesday verdict. As so many customers on repayment of the fees of up to two percent of the loan amount are still unclear.

The loan fee fell far on when Bausparer takes the credit claim – in addition to interest. According to the umbrella organizations, however, does not see the 20 building societies in their current rates, the fee currently. She used but widely used, according to the plaintiff NRW consumer.

finished Other methods compared

So can benefit customers with an older contract that want to apply for a loan before or have paid the fee before not too long ago. Who can claim back money from his building society depends on the limitation periods in this particular case from (Az. XI ZR 552/15).

In order to achieve a principle judgment, the Consumer Association of North Rhine-Westphalia had sued the largest German Bausparkasse Schwaebisch Hall because of a clause to a senior fare.

Originally, the Supreme Court should also have two complaints of home savings against W├╝stenrot negotiate. In both cases, the plaintiffs minute over. W├╝stenrot said to you on request, it had been agreed on a comparison and disclosed. The one complaint in all courts was unsuccessful. In the other, the plaintiffs lost on appeal.

For building societies, BGH attorney Reiner Hall argued that savings loans against real estate loans have special advantages. For example, could pay back the money borrowed at no extra charge before the end of term savings customers. These benefits would come at a price. For customers, it did not matter whether they paid them only on the interest or even a fee.

The Federal Court of Justice did not follow. As for lending fee if it were a judicial review subject to so-called price side agreement. This must be understood so that you confront any specific contractual consideration.

Yield: savers must take more and more risks

The fee is also different from the statutory model for loan agreements, which provide for a maturity-related interest, a non-term-dependent element. In particular, they will not be charged in the overall interests of the savings community as it does not contribute to ensuring the functioning of the building savings system. They will also not be offset by benefits to individual customers. Rather, these stood considerable disadvantages compared to such as the acquisition fee.

For ordinary credit agreements, the Supreme Court in 2014 ruled that banks can charge no processing fee because they thus pass on internal costs unduly on customers.