Bankia has been ordered to return 2,011 euros to a Lanzarote resident, who has managed to have the contract for an investment fund declared null and void. In its ruling, the Court of First Instance number 1 of Arrecife considers that there was a "defect in the consent given", since the financial institution did not duly inform the client of the product "nor of the risks" thereof. Bankia must also face the corresponding legal interest and court costs, although the sentence can still be appealed before the Provincial Court of Las Palmas.
In the trial, according to the sentence, the affected party, who is an 80-year-old retired sailor, declared that he had been working as a sailor all his life and that he had saved about 50,000 euros. According to what he stated, "the bank told him to diversify that capital and invest 25,000 euros in that investment fund", with the idea of "having a return" and a "moderate combined deposit contract" was formalized between the parties in April 2015.
However, this Lanzarote resident "was having more and more losses". "The plaintiff declares that he was not well informed, because if he had known that he was going to have any risk, he would not have invested that money", the ruling states, where it is stated that the affected party stated in the trial "that he signed the contract because the bank told him that he was going to have profits".
The employee who advised him did not remember if she had informed him of the risk
On the other hand, the Bankia employee who advised this man acknowledged in the oral hearing that she "did not" remember if she had informed him "of the risk involved in investing in that investment fund". "She does not even remember if the mifid test was done and if he was given the information brochure for the deposit", the ruling states.
Thus, the court points out that "it is verified that, on the one hand, the plaintiff did not receive all the necessary information from the bank for the formalization of said investment fund and, on the other hand, given the lack of due information, that the plaintiff gave a consent that was flawed". "From the evidence presented in the trial, it is verified that the plaintiff was not duly informed of the product or of the risks that he should assume in the event of an economic crisis", the sentence adds.
In this way, the Court of First Instance number 1 of Arrecife considers that "there is nothing more to declare than the nullity of the contract" due to "defect in consent" and condemns Bankia to "the restitution of the amount of 2,011.63 euros". And it is that, although the bank opposed the defense that the client "would not have lost that money if he had not decided to amortize the investment fund earlier, so the restitution of the requested amount would not proceed", the court considers that this is not the case.
"Certainly, if the bank had acted in good faith, it would not be obliged to return the money disposed of. However, in the present case, as has already been verified, it did not duly inform the consumer, so the latter should not assume the risk of its enrichment", the Court concludes.
