Misleading advertising of a deposit account and the use of abusive clauses have been questioned by the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection on the banking services market. Seven banks have recently learnt that such practices are prohibited

The Office regularly monitors the financial services market, checking, inter alia, whether agreements and regulations contain abusive contractual clauses and advertisements provide true information about the offered products and services. Unfortunately, undertakings often fail to remember this. Consequently to the Office’s activity on the financial market, in the last eight months, eight decisions regarding seven banks, namely: Alior, Bank Przemysłowo-Handlowy, Bank Gospodarki Żywnościowej, Bank Ochrony Środowiska, Getin Noble Bank, GE Money Bank and Sygma Banque Societe Anonyme (two decisions) have been issued. Moreover, the Office has brought an action to the court to recognise contractual clauses used by Bank Ochrony Środowiska as abusive.

Practices challenged by the Office include, inter alia:

Misleading advertising

Free e-account as a gift, You’ll get more, 8% - such were the slogans used by Getin Noble Bank to encourage customers to open a deposit account. However, the bank failed to inform them about all the conditions. In October 2009, the President of UOKiK initiated proceedings regarding the suspicion of misleading advertising. UOKiK’s charges related to the package products campaign conducted from January to February 2009, encouraging to open a deposit account and an online account. According to the information presented in the advertisement, interest rate on the deposit was 8% per annum and the e-account was a free gift.

Information gathered by the Office in the course of the proceedings revealed that in fact the account was not an additional gift to the deposit. In the event when less than the minimum amount of PLN 1,000 was kept on the account, the bank deducted commission of 1% of the deposit amount.

The President of UOKiK imposed on Getin Noble Bank a fine amounting to PLN 755,631 for misleading consumers. The decision is final. The bank has paid the fine.

Abusive clauses

The practices of Bank Gospodarki Żywnościowej that were questioned by the President of UOKiK consisted in application of contractual terms entered into the Register of Prohibited Clauses and contradictory to the Act on consumer loans. The undertaking had reserved the right to amend the regulations without indicating circumstances that would allow the changes. Moreover, in accordance with a provision in standard contracts on mortgage loans of up to PLN 80,000 (i.e. subject to the provisions of the Act on consumer loans), the consumer had to notify of early repayment of the loan 3 business days before such repayment. Pursuant to legislation in force, such notification should be made 3 calendar days before such repayment. The President of UOKiK imposed on the undertaking fines amounting to total PLN 2,978,087. The decision is not final. The company has appealed to the court.

BPH, BOŚ and Alior also learned that using abusive clauses is prohibited. BPH undertook the commitment to amend the provision that entitled to collect fees for servicing untimely repayment of debt. In the opinion of UOKiK, this entitled the undertaking to punish the consumer in default twice, collecting an additional fee apart from the statutory interest.

Moreover, the Office contested the clauses applied by Bank Ochrony Środowiska. One of the clauses was decisive with regard to the effectiveness of delivery of registered mail. Should the consumer fail to collect such mail, the letter was automatically considered delivered. Such a provision could lead to a situation where the consumer who is unable to read the letter for many reasons would have to bear the consequences of the content of that letter, which do not necessarily have to be advantageous. Similar clauses have also been included in the Register. The President of UOKiK imposed on Bank Ochrony Środowiska a fine amounting to PLN 129,058. The decision is final. The bank has paid the fine.

The President of UOKiK also questioned the practices of Alior Bank consisting in e.g. including information about charges and conditions of granting a consumer loan in annexes to the agreement instead of in the agreement. Pursuant to legislation in force, the agreement must provide for at least the terms and conditions of repayment, amount of commission and fees as well as the costs of requests for payment. Therefore borrowers, when reading the agreement, had a limited access to all material information. Also the provision which obliged the consumer to express consent for transferring all information which is a bank secret to the Economic Information Bureau was considered questionable by the Office. Pursuant to the legislation in force, it is possible, but not in every case; the law specifies which data can be transferred (such as first name, surname, PESEL number, amount of default). The President of the Office stated that Alior Bank had infringed collective consumer interests and imposed a fine on the bank in the total amount of PLN 530,316. The decision is not final. The bank has lodged an appeal against it to the Court of Competition and Consumer Protection.

Action to the Court of Competition and Consumer Protection

In its action against Bank Ochrony Środowiska that has been brought to the court, the Office has questioned six provisions in standard forms of mortgage loan agreements. UOKiK questioned the provisions which e.g. prevented a refund of bridge insurance premiums and low own contribution insurance premiums. The clause contested has been known to borrowers who are obliged to pay higher insurance before the mortgage is established for the bank. In accordance with the applied provision, the bank collected the higher premium and after the entry to the land and mortgage register it refunded the surplus, rounding it to the number of complete months during which the insurance institution did not provide protection. In the opinion of the Office, from the moment when the valid entry of a mortgage to the land and mortgage register was produced, the surplus should be refunded for the precise number of days. Moreover, UOKiK considered questionable the clause committing the borrower to provide real property valuation upon bank’s request. The bank did not specify situations where it could request the valuation, thus it could have requested it in any situation, exposing the consumer to considerable costs.

The Office reminds that when facing difficulties, weaker market participants should contact the bank in the first place. In the event when complaints are not considered, they can count on assistance from consumer ombudsmen or NGOs. Free advice is also provided by the Association of Polish Consumers under telephone number 800 800 008. Consumer guidance in Poland is financed, inter alia, from UOKiK’s budget. Moreover, disputes between consumers and banks with regard to cash claims up to PLN 8,000 are settled by the Bank Arbitrator.

Decisions issued by the Office relate to:

• Alior Bank, decision No. RŁO-17/2010; fine PLN 530,316
• BGŻ, decision No. RŁO-42/2009, fine PLN 2,978,087
• BOŚ, decision No. RBG-8/2010; fine PLN 129,058
• BPH, decision No. DDK-3/2010; commitment to change practice
• Getin Noble Bank, decision No. RWR-16/2010; fine PLN 755,631
• GE Money Bank, decision No. RKR–9/2010; commitment to change practice
• Sygma Bank, decision No. DDK-2/2010; order to refrain from the practice
• Sygma Bank, decision No. RŁO-1/2010; commitment to change practice

Additional information for the media:
Małgorzata Cieloch, Spokesperson for UOKiK
Department of International Relations and Communication
Pl. Powstańcow Warszawy 1, 00-950 Warszawa
Tel.:(+48 22) 827 28 92, 55 60 106, 55 60 430
faks (+48 22) 826 11 86
E-mail: malgorzata.cieloch@uokik.gov.pl