Among the set of abusive practices with which banks and other financial entities continue to hammer our long-suffering consumers, we will address in this small booklet one that seems most ruthless to us, which is that delaying the payment of a loan installment, most of the time not out of a desire to default, but due to a tight spot, a predicament that must be attended to. Well, once the aforementioned has occurred, the entity, in addition to hammering you with calls —today even made through artificial intelligence—, automatically adds another 30 euros under the concept of "expenses for claiming debtor positions." "He who does not want broth, two bowls!" says the popular saying from our rich Spanish language.
The kind readers who have come this far should know that current regulations require, among other things, that commissions may only be charged or expenses passed on for services firmly requested or expressly accepted by a client, and provided they correspond to services actually rendered or expenses incurred. Likewise, non-negotiated clauses that generate a significant imbalance or impose payment for services that have not been effectively rendered must be considered abusive and null.
On many occasions when this circumstance occurs, not to say always, there is no specific action recorded that can justify that amount. The computer system detects non-payment and adds 30 euros to the debt. In this regard, the Supreme Court already ruled clearly in its Judgment 566/2019, when it declared a 30-euro commission abusive because it was configured as an automatic claim, could be repeated, and was incurred by the mere non-payment of the installment, accumulating, in addition, to default interest, without any record of the effective actions taken by the entity or their cost.
In our opinion, the explanation for this continuing to happen is that many entities know that a significant portion of consumers will not claim. Some are unaware of their rights; others do not know how to contact the Customer Service Department and end up giving up because they consider it absurd to spend several hours writing documents, gathering evidence, waiting for a response, and eventually, going to the Bank of Spain to recover 30 euros, which is not a trivial amount, given that with that sum one can buy more than it seems at mealtime.
The Bank of Spain is not only for the big issues that affect the country. Being aware of these types of repeated practices, it should not limit itself to resolving the files of those who have managed to overcome the bureaucratic tangle to reach its claims service, but should act ex officio, require each of the entities a representative sample of files and check what collection actions were actually carried out; if they were automatic or individualized; what effective cost they had; how many times the commission was applied, and how much money was obtained through its collection.
In this matter, as in many others, the paralysis of Pedro Sánchez's legislative power is seriously affecting consumers. Along these lines, the bill to create an Independent Administrative Authority for the Defense of Financial Customers has been stalled for more than two years. The Government must move from a policy focused almost exclusively on facilitating individual claims to one based on prevention, inspection, and early detection of widespread practices.
Be that as it may, from here we encourage affected consumers to claim. Today it is easier than before. Criticized artificial intelligence, for some things, is effective for many others. In this case, it is enough to have an email account and ask it to draft the complaint with the data provided. You can also go to existing consumer offices, of course.