Hardly any consumers demand repayments: BGH ruling remains unknown!

Hardly any consumers demand repayments: BGH ruling remains unknown!

The issue of unacceptable account fees is important to many bank customers, but very few have so far made use of their rights to reclaim them. According to the current situation, the t-online.de In light of this, only a small proportion of consumers actively take action against fees that they have been charged unlawfully.

In April 2021, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ruled that fictional consent clauses in the general terms and conditions (GTC) of banks and savings banks are inadmissible. These clauses allowed banks to increase account fees without the express consent of customers. Despite this important decision, four years later, only 11% of affected consumers have taken action and requested their money back.

There is a lack of knowledge about rights

A survey by Verivox shows that many customers do not know their entitlements or forego them for various reasons. Before the ruling, at least 40% of bank customers had experienced an increase in their checking account fees in the previous three years. While in the summer of 2021 82% of those surveyed said they would demand a refund of fees paid if they had a claim, it was recently found that 40% of those surveyed were not aware of the BGH ruling. Of those who were informed, over 80% did not demand repayments.

There are many reasons for not making repayments. 34% of those affected believe that they have no claim, while 23% find the effort too high. In addition, 21% are unsure whether the judgment applies to them, and 14% think the recovery process is not worth it because the amounts involved are too small. Some consumers also fear that a refund could result in account termination or business relationships being strained.

Current developments

The BGH is currently dealing with a lawsuit to repay Berliner Sparkasse's fees that were levied via a fictitious consent clause. However, it remains unclear whether a verdict will be made on Tuesday. Although the BGH ruling mainly affects claims for reimbursement of bank fees, customers of other banks also have the right to assert their claims.

However, two requirements must be met for reimbursement claims: Firstly, the price increase may be based on an ineffective fictitious consent clause, and secondly, the claims must not be time-barred. However, the statute of limitations for the claims is controversial. While the Federal Association of Consumer Organizations assumes a period of ten years, other judgments, such as that of the Trier Regional Court, also assume a limitation period of ten years. The Berlin Court of Appeal, on the other hand, argues with a three-year deadline.

However, customers can always claim a refund for the last three years. A claim letter could theoretically cover claims for the last ten years, but banks could refuse reimbursements for a period of seven years. consumer centre.de highlights that banks are obliged to obtain the express consent of their customers for contract changes and price increases, and customer silence as consent is inadmissible.