Consumer Finance

ESBG supports the scenario chosen by the Commission for its proposal to retain the relevant and still valid elements of the DMFSD by integrating them into a broader directive (the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU which is not currently concerning financial products) and to make some adjustments. Thus, a specific chapter dedicated to “Financial services contracts concluded at a distance” has been added to this directive, making it possible to retain the specificities of the DMFSD.

Proposed Solutions and Actions

Simplification of information

Consumer credit is normally partially executed through the granting of a handful of small operations to consumers. Those operations are of limited complexity and – in comparison to mortgage credit – of small amounts, but are, in turn, regulated by considerably complex rules.

As an example of that, the CCD requires creditors to give excessively detailed information to the consumer prior to entering a consumer credit agreement. Nonetheless, consumers ignore information which is too complex or difficult to remember and there is evidence that simpler information with fewer figures is much more effective at landing critical messages. That information may refer to information that only reflects the specifics of the product and meets with client’s expectations for short and clear information – for example – the repayment periods, the amount of the repayment instalments and the applicable interest rate.

Reduction of information

Regarding the pre-contractual information, it is important to focus on diminishing the number of precontractual documents, which banks are obliged to serve to consumers in any case. This approach has not proved itself to be useful for consumers and for that reason the requirements for serving precontractual information and Standard European Consumer Credit Information aren’t helping in achieving the objectives of the Directive. Bearing digitalisation in mind, the required information can barely be presented in a clear and comprehensive way on mobile devices.

A critical look should also be taken at the amount of mandatory information to be included in the credit agreements themselves. From the consumer’s point of view, the agreement should contain only what is necessary, i.e. in addition to the total amount of credit, above all the repayment plan, the default interest rate and information about the typical consequences for the borrower during the performance of the contract (consequences of overdue payments, rights of withdrawal, early repayment conditions).

The reduction of information may be also observed through the role of the right of withdrawal. The right of withdrawal is an instrument for the consumer’s protection and when it is granted to the consumer it should diminish some of the requirements for the service providers, especially in the field of the pre-contractual information that needs to be provided to consumers. If the amount of information is not diminished, there is not a substantial meaning of the right of withdrawal.

Regulate activities rather than institutions

In ESBG’s opinion, gold plating practices in the implementation of the CCD by Member States have limited its effectiveness. The use of innovative technologies has prompted the arrival of new operators to the consumer credit market. Unregulated entities can take advantage of the consumer trust that regulated entities have gained through the years, and even put that trust at risk if they fail to deliver fair and transparent results, increasing regulated entities’ reputational risk. Therefore, a strict implementation of the CCD by all Member States would give consumers better visibility on their level of protection in Europe. In this sense, the CCD should regulate that consumer credit activity should be a reserved activity and should require the application of policies on responsible lending, transparency and customer protection. Any revision to the CCD should be based on the principle “same activity, same rules”.

Creditworthiness assessment requirements should be flexible and preserved for each Member State and each credit institution. There is no need for harmonisation.

In our view an effective creditworthiness assessment can’t be standardised, because of the following nonexhaustive reasons:

• it should be based on the knowledge of the borrower and on the ability to take into account the specificities of his situation, not on a mechanically applied criterion. This knowledge – inherent to the banker’s job – can’t be standardised.
• standardising the assessment of risk profile would block the market without taking into consideration the peculiarities of each Member State.
• it also may lead to a legal risk of not being able to deny credit if the European criteria are met.
• common indicators wouldn’t allow to take into consideration the economic and cultural background: the same indicators will not necessarily mean the same in different countries (e.g.: savings habits, national rates of divorce, cost of education for children).

Identified Concerns

The CCD evaluation has so far looked at the relationship between the needs and problems in society and the objectives of the Directive.

However, more importantly for us is the impact that digitalisation has had on consumer credit. The emergence of a variety of new technologies has commanded the development of the digital transformation in the commercial and corporate aspects of banking. It is easy to observe a significant upward trend in the budget share dedicated to R&D.

However, the CCD did not anticipate that technological disruption, and new digital means have brought a diverse set of innovative distribution channels, and along with them, new communication means, new ways to access credit and the uniformity of credit agreements.

The use of smartphones, tablets, computers, headsets, and other devices, for not only searching products, but also for entering into credit agreements, is a reflection of the reality that has exceeded the expectations considered by the legislators when agreeing the CCD.

In this regard, special attention needs to be paid to the information to be provided to consumers before entering into the credit agreement. In some Member States, particular attention must be paid to the actual conclusion of the credit agreement when using these devices. Art. 10 (1) CCD, in which the text form of credit agreements is standardised as sufficient, should be harmonised to a maximum in the future, in order to enable a digital conclusion. At present, many Member States have adopted stricter rules (e.g. written form), representing a real barrier for the single market. In our view, in order to adjust the already adopted measures to the new digital technologies it is necessary to assess how much detailed information is required and how it can best be provided to consumers.

We have noticed that new market players such as crowdfunding platforms or SMS loan-providers have not yet played such a major role in the area of consumer loans. Nevertheless, we see a tendency for this role to increase in the future and for considerable changes to be expected in consumer loans as well.

Why Policymakers Should Act

We fully support the principles of the CCD, but we believe that it is reasonable to measure the objectives of the Directive having in mind that:
consumers want to receive clear and manageable information in a short time.

• it is important not to overburden the consumers with information.
• its requirements should be suitable for new technology and distribution channels.
• a clear balance should be created between the objectives of the Directive and the rights of the creditors.​

Background

The EU Consumer Credit Directive (CCD) is designed to strengthen consumer rights and help potential customers make an informed choice when signing up to a credit agreement. Lenders provide standardised information on the product, allowing clear comparison by the consumer with other products available to them. In addition, lenders provide detailed information on the annual percentage rate of change; including the total cost of the credit.

The EU CCD was finalised in 2008. In 2011, an annex was added to clarify the rules on calculating the Annual Percentage Rate of Charge (APR). Finally, in 2014 a report was published in the Implementation of the directive. In 2019, the European Commission launched a consultation on the evaluation of the CCD, following on from an evaluation and fitness check roadmap. The review – still ongoing – aims to assess the effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance and EU added value of the Consumer Credit Directive.​

ESBG members finalised a position paper on the MCD review, and shared two briefing documents on the topics of reverse mortgages and green/energy efficient mortgages. These are topics on which the Commission is keen to receive more information from the national level to consider possible actions at the EU level.

ESBG also calls for keeping the 200 EUR threshold for the lower limit of the scope, as a smaller amount would incur high processing costs disproportionate to the return (and the same can be said for short-term loans of less than three months).

The Commission announced the draft text of the proposal on 30 June. The previous Consumer Credit Directive (CCD), dating from 2008, does not consider recent developments which have a wide impact on credit loans, such as digitalisation. It also overlaps with other legislative texts which have since been updated. These changes should be reflected in the CCD text.

On the required information, ESBG members welcome the Commission’s proposal to provide consumers with simplified, streamlined pre-contractual information. They are concerned, however, that the newly proposed one-pager (SECCO) might actually be in addition to the existing SECCI. If so, this would go against the goal of reducing the information overload on the consumer. As a solution, ESBG believes that the SECCO should be an alternative to the SECCI, and not an addition. We also call on the Commission to embrace digitalisation by allowing information to be provided via a computer or tablet, and not interpret ‘durable medium’ to mean strictly printed paper.

In addition, regarding the creditworthiness assessment, ESBG considers that it should be proportional to the type of credit. The creditworthiness assessment should not be the same, for example, for short-term overdrafts and a considerable loan. In the case of payment in few instalments, the consultation of a database of unpaid credits could be sufficient to grant credits of small amounts and of a duration of less than three months, and this consultation should become compulsory.