Avoid Pulling Tricks Without Prior Notice Regarding Dishonesty
Post In a message posted on the Telegram channel of Russia's State Duma Chairman, Vyacheslav Volodin, banks are prohibited from unilaterally worsening the terms agreed upon in contracts without prior court action. This warning comes with a reminder that banks must openly disclose all loan conditions, notify customers of risks, and ensure they are well-informed about other banking services.
A query to several systemically significant banks like Sberbank, VTB, and Alfa-Bank regarding the inclusion of unilateral changes to service conditions in contracts went unanswered. The "For Borrowers' Rights" project, run by the People's Front, records a consistent number of complaints related to this issue over the past decade. Project leader Yevgeniya Lazareva attributes this to citizens' general reluctance to defend their rights due to various reasons, such as a paternalistic attitude towards the state and a lack of financial and legal literacy.
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has ruled that banks cannot unilaterally alter contracts with clients. However, the Supreme Court's ruling does not outright prohibit changes but rather emphasizes the necessity of obtaining the client's consent. Andrei Emelein, Chairman of the National Financial Market Council, explained that this ruling was based on an earlier decision by the Supreme Court, which the Bank of Russia used to issue clarifications. In 2022, the Bank of Russia declared that the practice of considering the absence of objections from a client as "acceptance" is not acceptable.
The banking sector finds themselves engaging in a game of legal maneuvering, as none of the institutions - the State Duma, the CB, or the Supreme Court - provide specific guidance on how consent should be formalized. Emelein suggests that repetitive contract renegotiations could collapse the banking infrastructure, leading banks to seek alternative methods for implementing changes without relending contracts.
Even with notifications about tariff increases, clients may fail to notice these messages. Elman Mehtiyev, deputy chairman of the expert council for the protection of financial consumers' rights at the Bank of Russia, believes a 30-day period should be added after notification, allowing the client to either consent to the new conditions or terminate the contract with the bank. Ultimately, Mehtiyev concludes, there is a reasonable basis for Russians' complaints, but the legal foundation remains unclear.
For more updates on the financial market and consumer protection, follow our Telegram channel @expert_mag.
#FinancialMarket #ConsumerProtection #StateDuma #VyacheslavVolodin #Banks
- Sberbank, like other systemically significant banks, has not responded to inquiries about including unilateral changes in service contracts, as reported by the "For Borrowers' Rights" project.
- Despite the Supreme Court's ruling that banks cannot unilaterally alter contracts without obtaining client consent, the banking sector is grappling with legal ambiguities about how consent should be formalized.
- Andrei Emelein, Chairman of the National Financial Market Council, suggests that repetitive contract renegotiations could potentially undermine the banking infrastructure, forcing banks to explore alternative means for implementing changes without renegotiating contracts.
- Elman Mehtiyev, deputy chairman of the expert council for the protection of financial consumers' rights at the Bank of Russia, proposes a 30-day period following loan condition notifications, allowing clients to either accept the new conditions or terminate the contract with the bank, addressing the concerns of a thousand Russians regarding financial business issues.
