fighters against charges can see Polkm

High bank fees are not exactly in full. While some nonsensical fees are being tried in vain to reduce or fully abolish, they are far better in Poland in this respect.

esk Sdruen Defense Consumer (SOS) has so far failed in the dispute with SOB twice, on the other hand in Poland the competition protection ad and the consumer whistled over the banks in two games.

According to a Polish court, the fee for withdrawing cash at Pepce does not make sense. According to him, fr does not pay for the same service twice. In return, the bank paid once in the fee for keeping here, which should at the same time allow access to pensions, the second time in the actual withdrawal of cash on hand.

The Protection of Consumer Protection and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) was judged on this fee with two banks and won.

you only get a pension

The sweat that the judgment took first force was entered in the Register of Invalid Clauses.

“We have two illegal clauses in the register, the first from 2007 with Millennium Bank and the second file is Bank Zachodni WBK from this year’s regular,” said Kamila Kurowska from the competition and consumer protection series.

“Banks in Poland cannot charge a fee for the withdrawal of income from bnho tu to the bank’s office. Two many banks have provided clients with this type of banking transaction, but they are not allowed to do so, ”confirmed Grzegorz Adamski from Bank Zachodni WBK, one of the two banks involved.

Spor eskho SOS je nespn
The Czech Consumer Protection Association (SOS) also considers some bank charges to be unjustified or duplicate due to other payments. He considers the fee for keeping here and the fee for cancellation here to be the first.

These fees also went to court in all of them. The District Court for Prague 1 in May this year twice in the first round of the samples of the lawsuit of two clients of SOB rejected the refund of the fee for keeping the bank here and canceled it here. According to the agreement, the dispute will be continued by the client with the first representative in the municipal court of appeal.

u knock on the door

“The courts ruled for the second time in one week that the fees for keeping and canceling the bank here do not contradict the Czech first and SOB paid them the right time,” confirmed Milan Tomnek from SOB.

Justify the fee for cash withdrawals at the bank’s expense in administrative terms, personnel costs and the price for transporting and securing cash.

But should we pay a fee to the bank for paying our pensions and for accessing our own pensions? And go for that twice twice in the fee for keeping here and a second time for cash collection? In Poland, clients have tst. Let’s see which side the piccolo esk courts.

The very initiative of the lawsuit also indirectly fulfilled its purpose, when most of the banking houses operating in the Czech Republic waived the tax fee for cancellation here and thus prevented their clients from leaving the bank in case of dissatisfaction.

Related Posts