The BBVA was ordered to refund 684 euros for the abusive mortgage clause. Credit: Vvaz of imágenesdevvaz via canva.com
Usually, when you take away a mortgage, you’re expected to repay the loan rather than the bank’s notarized fee. That was exactly what one Spanish court ruled against this month, ordering the BBVA to refund the client 684 euros after declaring that he abused one of the mortgage clauses. The clause in question. Borrowers were forced to pay almost all related expenses from their mortgage, from registration to administrative costs.
The BBVA walked away without paying cents, and while this ruling may sound small, it lands in the middle of a long line of BBVA legal issues. Who should pay for fine print?
What the BBVA did
When the couple pulled out their mortgage at the BBVA, they disagree with a monthly repayment. The contract also said it must be paid to everything else, including notarization, registration fees, documents, and management fees.
In total, the additional cost was 684 euros, all of which was handed over to the customer, and the BBVA didn’t cover a cent. A Spanish court ruled that the clause was abusive. why? That’s because they broke the law. The judge said he unfairly tilted liability in the bank’s favor by violating basic consumer protection laws.
Banks cannot transfer all the costs of doing business with clients, not particularly through contracts that most people don’t know they can challenge it.
Currently, the BBVA has to pay 684 euros. This ruling could serve as a precedent for other homeowners in similar circumstances. If you are charged all the fees for your mortgage, you may be able to charge them.
BBVA achievements
This is not the first time a BBVA contract has landed in court or made headlines. Back in the 2010s, it wasSoil clauses” (Floor clause), set minimum interest rates on valuable mortgages. As a result, customers continued to pay high interest rates when interest rates fell. Many of them didn’t know this was happening.
In 2013, the Spanish Supreme Court ruled on these provisions, and then the European Court stepped in and told banks, including the BBVA, that they had to refund the clients all the money that some homeowners had reclaimed, but that wasn’t all.
The BBVA has been investigated in recent years for a prominent corporate spy scandal. This includes payments to the former police commissioner who delved into information about rivals and journalists.
As such, Fallout has shaken up the Spanish financial world and sparked internal reforms. In short, this latest ruling is not an isolated mistake. It’s a pattern, and Spanish courts are peeling off those layers.
Could this affect your mortgage?
If you have a mortgage in Spain within the last 10-15 years, you may be sitting on a refund without realizing it. Spanish courts have consistently ruled that it is illegal to charge customers for registration and management costs of all notary publics. Especially if it is buried in fine printing and a contract you never negotiated.
- Did you pay all the fees when you took out your mortgage?
- Have you had a contract from BBVA or another major bank?
- Has your bank assigned you a notary public or have you saved it without your argument?
If so, legal precedents are in your favor. Depending on the case, you are entitled to charge hundreds or thousands of euros.
Consumer groups across Spain, including FACUA and OCU, are encouraging more people to move forward, and while the process involves many paperwork, it is far from despair. Many clients have already won, so if you’ve never looked back on your mortgage, now might be a good time to do so.
The power of refunds
For clients, retrieving 684 euros might not seem like a fair amount. On the contrary, when almost every household has some form of debt and banks exerting this enormous contractual power, the judgment that includes this one is lacking in a greater disproportionate state.
This is a reminder that fine printing is important and even the most standard contracts can be questioned and challenged when crossing a line. For the BBVA, this is another page in a long legal history, but for the rest of us, it’s proof that just because something is familiar doesn’t mean it’s fair.
