Borrowing money always entails a certain risk, luckily every Dutch person knows that. And that risk is (legally required) also mentioned by the various loan providers. The slogan “Pay attention, borrowing money costs money” has now become quite common. Still, when taking out a loan, it is always important to first delve into your own financial situation. Because when you unexpectedly cannot meet the requirements set by the loan provider in terms of interest and repayment. This is usually fairly easy to figure out.
The vast majority of consumer credit providers such as personal loans and revolving loans are transparent, customer-friendly and help you with clear calculation examples to get a good overview of (the course of) your loan. However, the fact that some loan providers – consciously or unconsciously – are not always clear makes the conclusion of a personal loan or revolving credit sometimes a tricky business. Recently it turned out again during a case that was brought by an injured consumer who had borrowed money from Outerbank.
Revolving credit with Outerbank
The aforementioned case with the Kifid Financial Disputes Committee had to do with a “sharp rise in interest rates” that Outerbank (a wholly owned subsidiary of the French bank Credit Agricole) had implemented. One of the victims had started a case in which the issue was that the interest rate on a revolving credit had risen by more than 4 percent in 10 years. Incidentally, the victim was not in the right because, according to the complaints committee, interest rates are simply “dependent on all kinds of circumstances”. Unfortunately for the customer.
Reaction from the financial world
Incidentally, the case mentioned here did stir up the necessary material, and the necessary responses from the financial world came to the disputes committee. And many connoisseurs were not very pleased with the conduct of the lender Outerbank, despite the (for Outerbank) positive outcome of the case. For example, the Mikara consumer program devoted extensive attention to the case. Outerbank was therefore forced to submit a response.
The lender says on its own website about the Mikara broadcast: “We were overwhelmed by the Mikara broadcast of 30 April”. The Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets was a bit clearer, because according to this watchdog there were strangulation contracts that Dutch consumers had to deal with, although the AFM said it was a little more cautious when talking about customers who were “Locked Up”, or imprisoned, were in a credit. Professor Anoud Boot of the University of Amsterdam was even more positive. “Outerbank’s practices are morally reprehensible,” said the professor.