Interests of consumers using payment cards are well protected, however, according to the latest analysis of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection, there are still areas, where the rights of the weakest market participants may be violated

As the analysis shows, usually the banks observe regulations that protect the economic interests of payment card users. Nevertheless, UOKiK identified areas where the rights of the weakest market participants may be violated.

The payment card market in Poland develops very dynamically. This causes a number of practical problems associated with transaction security, but also with moulding laws and obligations of card users and issuers. For this reason the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection evaluated templates of agreements used in relation to payment cards (debit, credit and charge) issued by thirteen banks: Bank Zachodni WBK, BPH, Citibank Handlowy, EuroBank, ING Bank Śląski, Lukas Bank, mBank, Millennium, Multibank, Pekao SA, PKO BP, Raiffeisen Bank Polska and Volkswagen Bank Polska. As the analysis shows, usually the banks observe regulations that protect the economic interests of payment card users. Nevertheless, UOKiK identified areas where the rights of the weakest market participants may be violated.

 
Some banks (Citibank Handlowy, Raiffeisen Bank Polska) do not conclude traditional payment card agreements. They replace them with the consumer submitting an application for issuing a payment card, whose acceptance is confirmed by the bank. In the opinion of the Office, the simplification of formalities is equitable; however, in this case it may cause some insecurity. The customers of the bank are used to traditional signing the contract by both parties. Nevertheless it is important for them to be aware of the consequence of submitting the application and to be duly informed about the conditions of the agreement, they are de facto sign. As experience shows, both consumer awareness with this regard and reliability of the information provided by the bank are not satisfactory.

Pursuant to the Act on electronic payment instruments, the consumer is responsible for transactions made with a lost card before the fact of losing it, or its theft is reported up to the amount of euro 150. This limit does not concern situations when it is the customer who did not fulfil his obligations - for example by disclosing his PIN number to a third party. Whereas since the moment of reporting the loss of the card, its owner is responsible only for transaction that were made through his fault. Office’s analysis showed, that the regulations provided by the banks inadequately inform the consumers about their rights. For instance, they do not indicate the upper limit of the customer’s responsibility (Lukas Bank, Raiffeisen Bank Polska, Citibank Handlowy) or laconically refer to the Act (mBank, Millennium, Multibank). Sometimes the consumer’s responsibility is different, than in valid legal regulations - for example, BPH demands the consumer to undertake additional actions (submitting a written statement). The conditions of the agreement used by Citibank Handlowy state, that the customer has no alternative choice, i.e. he may not use the protection guaranteed by the Act free of charge, but has to pay for extended responsibility on the bank’s conditions. Moreover, this protection is only seemingly extended. Among others it introduces the time limit - up to 48 hours before the loss of the card (72 for cards with the picture of the owner) and excludes the customer’s responsibility for transactions confirmed by the correct PIN number.

According to the Office’s analysis it is not a sufficient premise for charging the card owner with the costs of the operation when an unauthorized person confirms a transaction with a correct PIN number. The Act on electronic payment instruments does differentiate the customer’s responsibility depending on the manner in which the operation has been confirmed. Using the PIN number by an unauthorized person does not have to be a consequence of a fault or omission of the consumer. It is worth adding that many crimes related to payment cards are associated with acquiring knowledge on the consumer’s identification (e.g. by placing a camera or modifying the keyboard of the ATM, etc.). Thus it may not be assumed, that an unauthorized person using the PIN number charges the card owner each and every time. However, some banks assume this in complaint proceedings. Furthermore, some banks - Citibank Handlowy, Raiffeisen Bank Polska - include such clauses in their regulations.

 
Almost each action associated with using payment cards is subject to a fee. Some of them may accumulate. A recent ruling of the Court of Competition and Consumer Protection questioned the payment for untimely payment of debt on a credit card that was collected by Raiffeisen Bank Polska regardless of interest accrued for the same reason. A clause used by Millennium that obligates the consumer to pay for consideration of an unjustified complaint - where it is the bank, that arbitrarily decides whether the claim is legitimate and the costs of its consideration - is also abusive. UOKiK also expressed doubts with regard to the amounts of fees associated with executing debts. In the case of Lukas Bank they are 10 zloty for a reminder, 15 zloty for a phone call and 50 zloty for a personal intervention by an employee of the bank. The Office believes that the amount of these fees should be economically justified, not arbitrarily determined.

 
Also deducting credit card debt from other accounts (Citibank Handlowy, mBank, Millenium, Multibank and PKO BP) is also a violation of the interests of the weaker party (e.g. in the case of a fixed-term deposit such deduction means the loss of interest). It is inadmissible for the bank to administer the consumer’s cash without his consent and often even without informing him about such deductions. This practice is contrary to the Bank Law, which guarantees the account owner to freely administer cash on his account.

The Office also found isolated irregularities in templates used by individual banks - for example, making the decision on unblocking a payment card on the bank’s discretion (Bank Zachodni WBK); stipulating, that if the consumer has several debts with different interest rates, when the consumer repays only a part of his total debt it is not the oldest debts that are repaid - as specified in the Civil Code - but the ones with the lowest interest rate, which results in higher effective interest rates (Citibank Handlowy); informing about changes in payments and commissions only at the premises of the bank and on the bank’s website (Bank Zachodni WBK); accruing interest to overdue interest (Lukas Bank); disclaiming responsibility for complaint consideration by card issuing organizations - for example Visa, MasterCard (Bank Zachodni WBK).

The President of UOKiK notified each of the banks of the irregularities found during the analysis of agreement templates used for payment card usage agreements. Depending on the undertakings’ responses, the Office shall take up actions within its competencies (initiating proceedings on practices that violate consumers’ group interest, filing a suit to UOKiK to recognize the clauses as abusive).

Additional information:
Elżbieta Anders, Spokesperson of UOKiK
International Relations and Communication Department
Office of Competition and Consumer Protection
Pl. Powstańców Warszawy 1, 00-950 Warsaw
Ph.: (+48 22) 827 28 92, 55 60 106, 55 60 314
E-mail: [SCODE]ZWFuZGVyc0B1b2tpay5nb3YucGw=[ECODE]