THE COURT HAS REVOKED A SENTENCE THAT IN THE FIRST INSTANCE RULED IN FAVOR OF THE BANK

The Court Orders Bankia to Pay More Than 41,000 Euros to a Couple from Lanzarote for a Swap

The court considers that the bank did not provide the clients with information about the risks of the product they were contracting "completely and accurately" and that it advised them "if not against their interests, then erroneously"

January 2 2019 (22:09 WET)
The Court orders Bankia to pay more than 41,000 euros to a couple from Lanzarote for a swap
The Court orders Bankia to pay more than 41,000 euros to a couple from Lanzarote for a swap

The Fifth Section of the Provincial Court has ordered Bankia to pay 41,349 euros to a couple from Lanzarote for a swap they contracted with the bank, which has now been annulled by the court, considering that they were not provided with information about the risks of the product they were contracting "completely and accurately". 

The court has revoked a judgment of the Court of First Instance number 4 of Arrecife that ruled in favor of the bank and has now ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, who argued that they had presented "a consent vitiated by error due to lack of information about the nature and operation of the product." Specifically, the swap resulting from the litigation was signed on May 13, 2008, with an effective date of May 21 of the same month and expiring on August 21, 2011, on a nominal amount of 478,000 euros. 

"What we find from the evidence presented is the conviction that the client was advised, if not against their interests, then erroneously, since the detail of said information has not been proven, especially when the office manager who testified in the plenary admitted that, to understand the operation of this product, the client needed to have specialized knowledge or know all possible scenarios," the Provincial Court states in the judgment,

In this regard, the court states that "there is no evidence that the actors have such specialized knowledge, which goes beyond possessing a degree, even in the economic field, nor that they have been shown extensively and in detail different scenarios." 

 

A circular that the branch manager did not remember and that was not provided 


In fact, although the swap marketer, who was the branch manager, indicated in the trial "that the product was explained according to an internal circular provided by the entity to its employees," although it is noted that "he could not remember the terms of the same" and that said circular was not provided to the process either, so the Provincial Court points out that it cannot know "the sufficiency of the explanations contained therein in order to conclude the proportion of complete and truthful information about the product" that was placed on the plaintiffs. 

"From the above, we believe that the information was not provided in this case to the clients completely and accurately, appropriate to their knowledge as an average citizen not an expert in financial products, so they were induced to error in the formation of contractual consent, which entails the declaration of nullity of the contract for this cause," concludes the Fifth Section of the Provincial Court, which in addition to annulling said contract orders Bankia to pay 41,349 euros to those affected. 

Most read