From Home Ownership to the Debt Trap: Foreign currency loans are a risky


Atters within theatters Eppendorf Electricity The law on the European Union has been used by the German authorities sinceрus on 11 June, and hasiden beaches. On the contrary, it is becoming increasingly clear that the new regulation creates more confusion than good. Consumer advocates are indignant, banks are innocent and politics sees no need for action.

Consumers do not benefit from the changes.

Consumers do not benefit from the changes.

Just a few weeks after its introduction, the new Consumer Credit Directive has made waves. Various tests and studies show that unlike the legislature, consumers do not benefit from the changes. A practical test of “Lesha Online” at four bank branches in Frankfurt am Main, for example, recently showed once again that desire and reality are far apart.

At Clasiebank, a bank employee calculated in detail for the test customer what costs were incurred for a given loan request. However, when the customer wanted to give this information in black, the transparency had come to an end. The practice test at Santander Bank and Postbank, which provided inadequate or less informative information, was similar. Only at Commerzbank did the model customer receive more detailed information.

Remaining debt insurance companies continue to be popular with banks.

As reported by “Lesha Online”, two of the bank employees wanted to sell the policy. Banks are still not required to report the cost of a residual debt insurance in the effective interest rate if the loan is also offered without the policy. At the Clasiebank, the insurance was already entered in the entry field.

Even when selling credit over the Internet,

Even when selling credit over the Internet,

The directive has not brought many benefits to borrowers, even when selling credit over the Internet. The representative example that banks have to give in promotional offers provides a dwindling overview because it is housed amid other information.

Banks reject criticism from consumers. “We are consistently implementing the law,” commented a Postbank spokesman. In his view, only discretionary powers were used which the legislature left open. Consumer Protection Minister Ilse Aigner sees no need for rework: “Given the recent recent entry into force and the significant changes in lending practice, it would be premature to make legal action now”.

Not only politicians and banks were criticized in connection with the new directive, but also parts of the trade press. In the media, the cancellation of the notice period and the legally compensated indemnification were most frequently discussed. As a result, according to the tone of some media, consumers are more flexible than ever before. Too often, it has been hidden that when a consumer cancels a loan, the processing fee is lost.

Conclusion: The new consumer credit directive does not seem to help anyone. The polyphony of comments from all camps shows that the confusion is great among all involved.

In the end, most of the costs will have to be borne by the customers: more administration means higher costs, which in turn affect the interest rate.