Almost everyone right now is using a credit card in their financial transactions. And it is not surprising anymore that instead of praising the seamless innovation, many are complaining about the underhanded way credit card companies charge their clients for various administrative fees.
One man in Russia decided that enough is enough and it is time to turn the tables on the lending institutions. It is time for the banks to pay customers' bills. Or, at least, one might.
Dmitry Alexeev (his surname was changed by the first Russian outlet to publish this story) of Voronezh, Russia is suing a bank for more than 24 million Russian rubles (about US$ 727,000) in compensation over a handcrafted document that was signed and recognized by the bank.
According to Alexeev, he received a credit card application for in 2008 from Tinkoff Credit Systems in his mailbox. It is pretty much like the application form that sales agents hand out to customers or sent through mails coming from Visa, Mastercard, American Express, or Discover (NYSE:DFS). Alexeev filled in the form and returned the signed application, though what he sent back was not exactly the same document the bank had sent him.
Alexeev reported that he changed some parts for his own benefit – most notably, the small print in the form. He opted in for a 0 percent APR and no fees, and added the line that says, “the customer is not obliged to pay any fees and charges imposed by bank tariffs." He also changed the URL of the site where the terms and conditions were published from www.tcsbank.ru to tcsbank.at.ua.
Additionally, he added a special clause that would protect him should the bank break the agreement in a unilateral manner. For each unilateral change in the terms provided in the agreement, the bank would be asked to pay the customer (Alexeev) 3 million rubles (about US$ 91,000), or a cancellation fee of 6 million rubles (US$ 182,000).
Alexeev then sent his updated agreement to the bank, and shortly thereafter received the bank's signed and certified copy, as well as a credit card.
However, after two years of active use, the bank decided to terminate Mr. Alexeev’s credit card. In 2010, he was informed that the termination was made because he was late in paying the minimum required amounts.
In 2012, the bank sued Alexeev for 45,000 roubles (US$ 1,363) – an amount that included the remaining balance, fees, and late payment charges. The court decided that the agreement Alexeev crafted was valid, and required Alexeev to settle only his balance of 19,000 rubles (US$ 575).
Despite the apparent victory, Alexeev continued to fight back. On 1 August 2013, the Kominternovsky District Court of Voronezh launched hearings about Alexeev's countersuit against the bank. As Tinkoff Credit Systems had not honored eight clauses in the agreement, Alexeev now wants the bank to pay amends of 24 million rubles (US$ 727,000) total. The law firm Konsultant, which is representing Alexeev, says that the bank’s decision to terminate the agreement cannot be lawful because his client was not paid 6 million rubles, as per terms of the amended agreement.
The bank has so far said that the case was related to "a nonrecurrent technical issue," and it is willing to have its day in court. The next hearing will be held in September.
One man in Russia decided that enough is enough and it is time to turn the tables on the lending institutions. It is time for the banks to pay customers' bills. Or, at least, one might.
Dmitry Alexeev (his surname was changed by the first Russian outlet to publish this story) of Voronezh, Russia is suing a bank for more than 24 million Russian rubles (about US$ 727,000) in compensation over a handcrafted document that was signed and recognized by the bank.
According to Alexeev, he received a credit card application for in 2008 from Tinkoff Credit Systems in his mailbox. It is pretty much like the application form that sales agents hand out to customers or sent through mails coming from Visa, Mastercard, American Express, or Discover (NYSE:DFS). Alexeev filled in the form and returned the signed application, though what he sent back was not exactly the same document the bank had sent him.
Alexeev reported that he changed some parts for his own benefit – most notably, the small print in the form. He opted in for a 0 percent APR and no fees, and added the line that says, “the customer is not obliged to pay any fees and charges imposed by bank tariffs." He also changed the URL of the site where the terms and conditions were published from www.tcsbank.ru to tcsbank.at.ua.
Additionally, he added a special clause that would protect him should the bank break the agreement in a unilateral manner. For each unilateral change in the terms provided in the agreement, the bank would be asked to pay the customer (Alexeev) 3 million rubles (about US$ 91,000), or a cancellation fee of 6 million rubles (US$ 182,000).
Alexeev then sent his updated agreement to the bank, and shortly thereafter received the bank's signed and certified copy, as well as a credit card.
However, after two years of active use, the bank decided to terminate Mr. Alexeev’s credit card. In 2010, he was informed that the termination was made because he was late in paying the minimum required amounts.
In 2012, the bank sued Alexeev for 45,000 roubles (US$ 1,363) – an amount that included the remaining balance, fees, and late payment charges. The court decided that the agreement Alexeev crafted was valid, and required Alexeev to settle only his balance of 19,000 rubles (US$ 575).
Despite the apparent victory, Alexeev continued to fight back. On 1 August 2013, the Kominternovsky District Court of Voronezh launched hearings about Alexeev's countersuit against the bank. As Tinkoff Credit Systems had not honored eight clauses in the agreement, Alexeev now wants the bank to pay amends of 24 million rubles (US$ 727,000) total. The law firm Konsultant, which is representing Alexeev, says that the bank’s decision to terminate the agreement cannot be lawful because his client was not paid 6 million rubles, as per terms of the amended agreement.
The bank has so far said that the case was related to "a nonrecurrent technical issue," and it is willing to have its day in court. The next hearing will be held in September.
Posts
0 comments
Post a Comment