The Euribor goes down, but the clause ‘soil‘ limits the reduction of the quota in some mortgages
The Euribor goes down and goes down and many families see his quota reduced in up to 300€. Nevertheless, another the majority of the mortgages they include in the contracts a clause for which there limit themselves the effects of the fall of the Euribor, the called “clause I occur rarely”. Namely for much that the Euribor lowers, establishes a minimal interest that the entity will receive and that is usually in 2 % and 3 %, although cases happen of up to 4,5 %.
Apparently, these clauses I 'occur rarely' and 'roof' (the last one limits also the change in the interest rate, but in this case to the rise) they are legal and negotiable, and they are applied by many entities, but not by all. Also, not all the banks apply it in all the cases, so to know if our contract has this clause we will have to read the writing or wonder it to our bank straight.
at 11:39 am
If I have a clause soil of 2,5 %, and a differential of 0,80. In the review, will not the interest be able to be minor than 2,5 (incuyendo the differential) or that 2,5 + 0,80, or, 3,05 %???
Thanks.
at 11:02 am
Piccolina depends on how there is written the clause that you have signed. If it is a 2,5 % more distinguishing, so if, the final soil would be 3,05 %. If it was a 2,5 % final since not.
You have to read thoroughly the clause.
at 2:57 pm
2.5+0.8=3.05??? ein?
at 3:15 pm
It is true: 3.3 %.
at 6:33 pm
Letter model
TO MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE NATION
TO SENATORS AND DEPUTIES OF THE NATION
TO OTHER AUTHORITIES AND PERSONALITIES
TO THE MASS MEDIA SOCIAL
Matter: ON THE CALLED CLAUSE I OCCUR RARELY AND ROOF IN THE MORTGAGES.
Dear (a) Gentleman (a)
The suscribiente wants to move the interested authorities and to the mass media social alternative information not dresses in the press on this matter, not treated by the politicians during the debate on the state of the nation, to be a topic of the elections to the European Parliament, with the request of that this point of view that is the shared one by most of the affected ones finds the space that is deserved.
The clause I occur rarely roof consists of limiting the oscillations of the interest rate applicable to the mortgages. Seemingly, this one neither is excessive it nor is designed by absence of reciprocity either.
In effect, the Banks include a roof that supposedly benefits the clients. One forgets the detail of which this soil is located in 15 points or more. Meanwhile, the soil is fixed over the minimal results of the Euribor, assuring an extra benefit to the Bank without any compensation. The client loses when the Euribor is high and also when it is low, while the Bank when the above mentioned Euribor is high insures itself his differential and when it is under an extra benefit. An interest rate usurer and leonine.
The reference index fits to the rise, the differential does not falter since it hits in the eye and the people are alert with the topic of the rounding, but as the order of the factors does not alter the result, this one is obtained by another way. It is a question of a rounding of the index of reference up to reaching the soil (the roof is unattainable as one will see), of an adjustment of the price of the money without the service of any service or equivalent compensation. The rounding is not to give him round form to anything, the price is to fit without compensation and always for the sake of the Bank.
Let's explain because the clause is excessive.
1) it is excessive since it is a practice with the same meaning as the called rounding. In this one the differential was fitting only for the sake of the Bank, without compensation of any new service. The soil and the roof is the same for his effects and it forms, although another name puts itself and he is dressed in different way. The price of the Euribor fits up to reaching the soil (the Euribor is ignored because this one the Bank considers it in low levels and decides that the client should do an effort in favor of his result account, and for it it replaces the Euribor with another index of reference known as soil, fixed index while the Euribor does not overcome it) and this way there inflates the current interest rate, that is to say, the price of the credit that is the service that the Bank gives to the client. The same result as the rounding, in the rounding the differential was modified unjustifiably, and in this one the reference index. Always for the sake of the Bank, since the roof is unattainable.
This clause breaks the economic balance and especially the reciprocity in the mortgage contract, violating the established in the article 82.4.c, of the TEXT REFUNDIDO OF THE LAW GENERAL PARA THE DEFENSE OF THE CONSUMERS AND USERS AND OTHER COMPLEMENTARY LAWS, which it indicates that in any case there will be excessive the clauses that determine the absence of reciprocity in the contract, this one as regards the article 87, paragraph 5 that it indicates that they are excessive “The regulations that foresee the rounding to the rise in the emaciated time or in the price of the goods or services or any another stipulation that foresees the cashing for products or services not really secondhand or emaciated in an effective way.” In this case the Bank does not increase the given money supply, this keeps on being the same. I underline in any case, so this type of clause although she should turn out to be formally how negotiated or signed is considered to be excessive by the mentioned legislation. This is the aspect that the press has not known, presenting the clause like valid for being negotiated and signed before notary, what turns out to be completely been wrong, implying like effect that the affected people give up.
2) it masks the absence of reciprocity including the roof, which supposedly is the compensation that he benefits to the client. But the roof is located in an unattainable level. Clear that this is necessary to prove it, how it is possible to prove something that has not happened, here there takes root the skill of the inventors of the soil and the roof. In principle, nobody can assure 100 % that in a time given the Euribor could reach 15 points or more of roof. Nevertheless, there exists a way of verifying if the soil - roof is structured with or without reciprocity. For that there are the historical series of the indexes of reference. From December, 2003 until October, 2005 the Euribor was below 2.5, while his historical maximum is 5,393. Can any doubt stay as for the reciprocity of the soil - roof? Obviously none. The soil is over the minimum of the index for nearly two years, it is an insured profit, it was necessary only to hope to cover the time.
But if the series of other indexes take the absence of reciprocity is even verified: the maximum of the mibor was 10.9 to one year in December, 1993; of the IRPH banks in equal date it was 11.57; of the IRPH entities in equal date of 11,7; and of the MINT of 12,37 also in December, 1993. How is it possible to observe the roof it is unattainable, if we give value to these statisticians seizures of Invertia.com and that the Banks bear in mind to structure a soil - roof that was never benefiting the client. How I have not studied series of previous years, if any of these indexes had reached one day a type of 15 or more it would be a question of a relating to the moment situation and hardly repetable. These series prove it. In any case an average mortgage for 150000 euros to 30 years would give a quota for 1896 euros to 15 %: the State would have to intervene.
He has remained demonstrated with information and explanations because this clause is excessive in accordance with the legislation that protects the consumers. But, also, it is possible to affirm that although the legislation should not demand it, it is obvious that this clause implies an important imbalance that imports a quantity of notable money to the detriment of the client and his familiar economy, and that only benefits the Bank unjustifiably since this one does not contribute anything in return; one alters of substantial form the reciprocal rights and obligations of the parts always fitting the type of reference in favor of the Bank, forcing the consumer to pay a higher type, that is to say, a higher price for a product or service which raw material gets cheaper: the money. It is as if the people had to pay more to the baker when the wheat goes down, or to Repsol when the diesel goes down, etc., etc., being supported the rest of stable variables: no?!
3) in case of the substitutions, the inclusion of this clause is particularly or doubly excessive, since it provokes that when the condition of the Euribor happens below the soil, the client will be forced to pay more than in the previous replaced mortgage. The Banks that realize this practice usually attract the clients of other banks offering him to improve his mortgage, that is to say, to improve the applicable interest rate of the hand of the differential. It is a question of maneuvers that they tend to confuse and/or to confuse the lay client in mortgage and financial matters in order that he believes that it carries out a profitable business.
The Law that regulates the mortgage substitutions establishes clearly that “In the substitution writing it will be possible only to agree on the progress of the conditions of the interest rate, so much ordinarily as of delay, initially agreed or current.” This the article 4 of the Law was saying it 2/94, of March 30, on Substitution and Modification of Mortgage Loans. This article was modified by the Law 41/2007, with the target that the term could be modified by this subsuppliant route also. The target to improve the economic conditions of the mortgage replaced also gets rid of the reduction arranged in the costs register them and notarial to take it to effect. As the modified law does not use the term to improve but of modifying, this modification is made use for the mortgaged ones were disappointed presenting to them offers that seemingly improve his conditions inducing them to take decisions that harm his patrimony.
This clause affects the prime mover of the substitutions that is to improve the applicable interest rate. Any clause that stretches to neutralize the positive effects of the progress of the index of reference or of the differential worsening the applicable interest rate of a replaced mortgage is absolutely opposite to right, it is opposite to the nature to the extract to the meaning of life of the institution of the mortgage substitution. Fond of the cause of the substitutions, and there is no contract or valid clause without legitimate cause and in accordance with right.
This clause fond of the employment and of the national economy. In effect, the money that there could obtain the families mortgaged with the descent of the Euribor remains in the hands of a few shareholders of the Banks, fattens the account of result of these Banks without giving an extra service in return. It is a money that the Bank extracts of the circulation, since the families deprived of the same one cannot spend it and that way stimulate the consumption and the employment.
It is obvious that the press must explain these things and demand of the Government a progress of the legislation that it protects or must protect the consumers of the bank sector. That there is a scrutiny of these practices that harm the consumer, to the progress of the competitiveness and of the employment.
I hope that this reflection should serve to you like support of those who more need it.
Greetings
Signature
at 7:42 pm
Thank you Seraph, this is what I call ‘a good explanation’.