La Banque Postale clients haven’t any selection: in the event that they don’t want their home savings plan (PEL) to be closed, they have to open a paying present account on this institution and make funds to it. common. To open this account, they have to pay a minimal of 13.20 euros per yr, however the charges charged to them can attain 100 euros. Those who refused this type of blackmail noticed their ELP closed.
Several have complained to the Federal Union of Consumers (UFC) – What to Choose, which considers this follow unlawful. Indeed, explains the latter, in a press release dated March 31, the ELP is “A free product” and “No legal provision requires its holder to also open a current account in the bank concerned”. The solely obligation envisaged consists in making annually, at common, month-to-month, quarterly or semi-annual installments, funds into the ELP.
Respect the authorized framework
The customers’ affiliation considers that La Banque Postale can not impose the opening of the account, “Under the pretext of regulatory requirements”. She intervened along with her to ask her to respect the authorized framework. Without success. She subsequently introduced, on March 31, that she had taken her to the Paris courtroom. She asks that she be condemned to cease this follow, but additionally that she not have the proper to shut the PELs of consumers who refuse to open an account.
The Postal Bank advised AFP that it was asking its clients “To regularize their situation, by giving them a period of two months”. But clarified that“In the event that this compliance with the regulations would have generated malfunctions unfavorable to the customer, [elle] will continue to examine individual situations ”.
This case is not the first between the UFC and La Banque Postale. In April 2010, the association assigned her to “Deceptive advertising and marketing practices” regarding one in all its funeral insurance coverage insurance policies, Résolys Obsèques Financement. On January 24, 2012, the court de grande occasion de Paris had, nonetheless, rejected it, ruling that the contract was “In accordance with the legislation”.