UOKiK penalises four banks PLN 147 million over contract clauses

Poland's Office of Competition and Consumer Protection has imposed PLN 147.09 million in penalties on four banks over consumer-contract clauses that allowed unilateral changes to terms, fees and commissions. The authority's decisions are not final and may be appealed to the Court of Competition and Consumer Protection.

The decisions concern Bank Pocztowy, Erste Bank Polska, ING Bank Śląski and Plus Bank. UOKiK imposed two penalties on each bank: one concerning clauses for changing contract terms and another concerning clauses allowing fees or commissions to be raised or introduced.

The individual penalties are PLN 2.71 million for Bank Pocztowy, PLN 80.68 million for Erste Bank Polska, PLN 63.25 million for ING Bank Śląski and PLN 453,000 for Plus Bank.

UOKiK said the challenged clauses covered bank accounts, payment and credit cards, loans and credits, including mortgage loans. Its position is that consumers must be able to identify, when signing an agreement, when a bank may later change its terms, what the change may affect and how far it may go.

The clauses under challenge

Bank Pocztowy used wording referring to changes in its offer involving the extension or improvement of services or products. UOKiK said the clause did not distinguish ancillary improvements from terms that could affect the consumer's decision to enter the agreement, potentially including repayment arrangements or loan security.

For ING Bank Śląski, UOKiK described wording referring to a decision, recommendation, guidance, position, ruling or other document issued by a supervisory body or another authorised entity. The authority said terms such as "position", "other document" and "other authorised entity" did not allow consumers to determine which events could justify a change. A separate clause could permit fee and commission increases of up to 200%, including after inflation rose by 0.30 percentage points or average pay increased by 1%.

Erste Bank Polska's clause referred to a 3% increase in average monthly pay and an inflation rate of at least 0.5 percentage points. It also allowed an "adequate" increase or introduction of an "adequate" fee linked to higher operating or service costs. UOKiK said the wording did not explain how a change in an indicator would affect a particular charge.

Plus Bank's clause referred to energy, telecommunications, postal and transaction-settlement costs, as well as "other costs" paid to external institutions. UOKiK said that open-ended wording left consumers unable to determine which specific cost could justify a higher charge.

UOKiK President Tomasz Chróstny said, "Sama inflacja czy ogólny wzrost kosztów nie dają bankowi dowolności w podnoszeniu opłat", meaning that inflation or general cost increases do not give a bank discretion to raise fees. UOKiK also said that a consumer's right to terminate an agreement did not necessarily resolve the problem, because a borrower could face accelerated repayment and the need to find replacement financing.

The decisions are non-final. Each bank may appeal to the Court of Competition and Consumer Protection. The source identifies no filed appeal, appeal deadline or implementation date.

The next official record to monitor is any bank appeal or subsequent UOKiK status update.