“A way of the cross to only receive S/36 despite losing more than S/50,000,” warned the citizen and lawyer Claudia Alayo in conversation with La República, when describing his experience after suing Interbank before Indecopi for unilaterally altering the conditions of their contractual relationship.
Like many Peruvians, Claudia took advantage of the facilities announced by the Government and by the banks themselves, which to deal with COVID-19 rescheduled the collection of mortgage loans for three months (March, April and May 2020). The recording of the telephone call with Interbank was one of the evidence presented to have her case recognized.
And it is that, without prior communication, the bank began to increase the monthly fee from S/1,310 to S/1,346, the TCEA from 10.08% to 11.7%, and the principal balance from S/110,381 to S/ 113,403. That is to say, increased the loan in more than S/3,000.
Upon learning of the matter, Claudia sued Interbank on October 5, 2021. Her knowledge of the law helped her carry out her complaint, which she had to put together for months to meet the criteria required by Indecopi.
Although she considered hiring specialized lawyers, the high costs of between S/5,000 and S/10,000 made her back off.
“Indecopi should have lawyers ex officio, such as those that the State assigns to the Judiciary or the Public Ministry. There would be thousands of cases that would be presented ”, he commented.
A half solution
After three years of monitoring and processes, finally on August 18 they notified him about the Final Resolution 2143-2023/SPCin second instance, of his case.
The document confirmed four sanctions against the bank for a total of S/182,605.50 (36.89 UIT).
However, what Indecopi resolves differs from what was established in a first instance, which was appealed by Interbank on September 20, 2022.
Now, in this latest resolution, the return of the S/51,671.51 that was improperly charged is not being considered, and Claudia is only entitled to receive S/36, the cost of the procedure. Apart, the fine was reduced from 50.71 UIT (S/251,014.50) to 36.89 UIT.
credit damage
Claudia also denounced the irregular freezing of her account, which prevented her from paying the monthly installments for October 2020. This resulted in a negative report to Infocorp later.
This scenario not only prevented him from accessing vehicle loans or acquiring a gas stove, but he has also been informed that the rectification processes can last from 6 months to several years. “In that time that ‘cleaning up’ will take, I will be excluded from the credit system, when I am not a debtor to the bank,” she specified.
Added to this were the numerous collection calls she received, which she considered coercive techniques by Interbank.
Other sanctions were given for appropriation of the collection of the ITF and inadequate attention from the bank to the first claim about the disqualification to make the prepayment of its debt.
Complaints won before Indecopi
This newspaper has learned of other complaints. Through Final Resolution No. 1827-2023/CC1, Indecopi fined Interbank more than S/57,000 for manipulating the accounts of its users without notifying and charging commission. This is because the type of account was unilaterally changed to one that had a commission for deposits of S/30 for each operation.
By means of the Resolution 2019-2023/SPC-INDECOPIthe fine to Interbank was confirmed for more than S/34,000 for preventing the client from paying an amount less than S/400 at the window.
Final resolution of Indecopi
Resolution does not stipulate the return of undue charges greater than S/51,000 to the user and reduces the fine to Interbank by S/68,409.
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.
