The National Institute for the Defense of Competition and the Protection of Intellectual Property (Indecopi), through the Final Resolution 2143-2023/SPC to which the Republic agreed, confirmed in second instance four sanctions for a total of S/182,605.50 (36.89 UIT) to Interbank Bank. The first was applied for having varied—without duly informing—the rescheduling conditions of a mortgage loan, generating a charge of interest not agreed upon to the user.
Likewise, a penalty was imposed for the irregular freezing of the credit, which prevented the payment of the monthly installments of October 2020, which caused the defendant to be subsequently rNegatively reported to a credit bureau. Other sanctions were given for retention and appropriation of the collection of the Tax on Financial Transactions (ITF) and not rendering accounts of the AFP Funds delivered.
The last penalty is due to the inadequate attention to the client’s first claim (Claim No. 30269581), where she expressed her complaint about the disqualification to make the prepayment of her debt and requested an amortization of S/15,000.
What did Indecopi resolve?
The regulatory body declared the lawsuit against the Bank por violation of articles 18 and 19 of Law 29571, Consumer Protection and Defense Code. “The denounced provider did not comply with providing the rescheduling conditions informed to the complainant, generating the collection of non-agreed interest”, can be read in the document.
Along these lines, he declared the claim for freezing accounts and preventing the payment of the mortgage loan to be founded. Likewise, for not complying with the return of the ITF collection for the withholdings of the amounts of S/ 1,251.03 and S/ 1,251.34.
The breach of article 88.1 of Law 29571 was also confirmed, for not adequately addressing the claim No. 30269581 of the complainant related to debt amortization.
As a corrective measure, Indecopi has given Interbank a period of up to 15 days toreverse the reprogramming of the credit, returning to the previous state of the infraction and allowing the payment of original installments without interest, commissions or additional penalties.
The rectification of the complainant’s credit rating, which was affected by the payment impediment, will also be required. In addition, you must return the collections made for the ITF concept charged for the sum of S / 0.50, plus the interest and expenses that may have been generated.
Finally, the bank must pay a balance of S/182,605.50 (36.89 UIT) for the four aforementioned violations. It should be noted that, although most of the claims are covered, The plaintiff in dialogue with this medium warned that the Specialized Chamber for Consumer Protection has not ordered that the money that was improperly charged be refunded or deducted from the original principal balance.
In addition, the bank’s fine has been reduced, which in the first instance resolution (R. 2351-2022/CC1), issued on August 12, 2022, was for S/251,014.50 (50.71 UIT).
Source: Larepublica
Alia is a professional author and journalist, working at 247 news agency. She writes on various topics from economy news to general interest pieces, providing readers with relevant and informative content. With years of experience, she brings a unique perspective and in-depth analysis to her work.
