Can you include me in a file for a controversial debt defaulters?

lista de morosos

 

La inclusión en un fichero de morosos por impago de una deuda controvertida judicialmente es una intromisión ilegítima al derecho al honor y conlleva el derecho a su indemnización.

This is confirmed by the Judgment of the Provincial Court of Palma de Mallorca (Section 3) of 7 June 2016.

Dos clientes que tenían un préstamo hipotecario con el Banco Popular reclamaron ante los juzgados la eliminación de la cláusula suelo contenida en el mismo. The lawsuit was filed in November 2012 and finally, they got a judgment by, que condenaba a la entidad financiera a su eliminación con devolución de las cantidades abonadas en exceso desde la “archiconocida” Judgment of the Supreme Court 9 May 2013.

However, without notice or demand, y con posterioridad a la interposición de la demanda, the bank were included in a file of defaulters.

So things, customers brought proceedings before the courts, considering that that inclusion was an unlawful interference with her right to honor.

The Court of First Instance number 1 de Palma de Mallorca dictó sentencia el 21 October 2015 estimating demand y condenando al Banco Popular Español SA por vulneración de los derechos fundamentales al honor y/o a la protección de datos de carácter personal de los clientes condenándole al pago de una indemnización de 5.000 euros to each of the actors, con condena en costas.

Banco Popular appeals to the Provincial Court confirms the judgment of the first instance and dismissed the action the bank.

Section refers to its judgment of 21 April 2016 which in turn cites the Supreme Court 24 April 2009:

“Esta Sala, in plenary, He has maintained the position to understand that inclusion, truthfulness missing, by an entity, in a register called solvency -the heritage “records of defaulters” -It would infringe the right of honor of the person concerned who has appeared in such register erroneously”.

Para el caso de que la deuda sea controvertida, el Alto Tribunal indicó claramente en su Sentencia de 1 March 2006 that:

"If the debt is disputed, because the owner of the data should not legitimately consider that what is being sought and the question is subject to judicial or arbitral decision, nonpayment is not indicative of the insolvency of the affected. "

The bank tried to defend himself saying that not only should the excess amounts paid by the effect of soil integrity clause but also some fees and compensation was excessive.

La Audiencia considera que dicho impago no se considera suficientemente probado, pues si se descontaba todo el exceso pagado por el “suelo” a los clientes les habría quedado pendiente un importe de solamente 79 euros. In any case, the bank had included the actors as defaulters by the entire debt, which included the controversial.

Prior request

The lack of prior requerimento reinforces the irregular behavior of the bank. Como indicó en su propia sentencia de 21 April 2016:

"The absence of requirement as a condition for not playing there trespass in honor but as an element that reinforces since the lack of requirement, with warning insertion in the files of defaulters, It has meant depriving injured parties to make a reweighting of its refusal to pay the interest arising from the application of the unfair term, in view of the admonition to be included in the records of defaulters. "

Amount of compensation

Aunque los parámetros para fijar la cuantía de la indemnización son difíciles de fijar, we must refer to Article 9.3 of la Honor Protection Act. Once proven trespass, establece una presumption “legal and law” de existencia de perjuicio. Y la indemnización se extenderá al daño moral. Este deberá valorarse atendiendo a las circunstancias del caso y a su gravedad, taking into account the spread of interference.

Article 7.7 of la Honor Protection Act indicates that the imputation of facts or the manifestation of value judgments through actions or expressions that in any way impair the dignity of another person, undermining its reputation or attack against its own estimate, es una intromisión ilegítima en el derecho al honor.

The record is inconsequential whether or not consulted by third parties, It is a public record. Moreover, besides the moral damage Article 9.3 LPH, en el caso de producirse otros daños (as denial of credit), would also be compensable (STS 24 April 2013).

For, the Court considers adjusted compensation 5.000 euros per applicant set in the first instance for the following reasons:

  • The plaintiffs suffered the denial of credit as a result of inclusion.
  • They repeatedly went to the bank.
  • It consists proved that at least five companies consulted the file.
  • After being discharged, They were returned to include, knowing how controversial debt.

Ultimately, the judgment convicting the People's Bank to compensate the plaintiffs for illegal interference in the right to honor to be included in a register of delinquent debt by a controversial court confirmed.

Consult your case now

Leave a Reply

Language


Set as default language
 Edit Translation


Subscribe to receive a book PDF


Just for signing up receive via email the link to download the book "How to change lawyers" en format digital.
Sign up here

Sígueme en Twitter



Subscribe me

* This field is required