SANTANDER, 24 Oct. (EUROPA PRESS) –
Two judgments of the Medio Cudeyo courts have condemned Wizink Bank to return more than 18,000 euros to individual clients of Cantabria for the excess they have paid in their respective credit contracts, at “an interest significantly higher than the normal amount of money.”
On the one hand, the Court of First Instance number two of the aforementioned municipality has declared void an operation considering it “usurious”, consisting of a revolving-type credit card signed in May 2007.
The remunerative interest stipulated in the contract was 24.7% for purchases and 26.8% for withdrawals and cash transfers, “notably higher than normal money,” according to the ruling, to which Europa Press has had access.
In this sense, the judge indicates that according to the tables published at that time by the Bank of Spain, the APR in consumer credit operations was 9.59%.
It also considers the interest set by the company “manifestly disproportionate to the circumstances of the case.” In this regard, it points out that the defendant entity has not proven “exceptional circumstances that justify an interest rate that is significantly higher” than the aforementioned.
Thus, the magistrate considers the revolving credit card contract as “usurious” invalid and condemns Wizink Bank to return to the client the excess that it has been paying during the term of the same on the capital drawn down and received, specifically 16,169 euros and another 654.86 of interest.
On the other hand, said entity has also been condemned by the Court of First Instance number 1 of Medio Cudeyo at the request of another consumer -also defended by the lawyer José Ángel Ecenarro-, to whom he will have to return 1,269 euros after having also declared “usurious “the credit agreement that linked him with the mercantile.
In this case, the head of the court also highlights that the documentation provided by the defendant – extracts and receipts of the card in question and information about it – shows that the requirement of accessibility and legality is not clearly met.
And it is that the size of the letter – “barely a millimeter” – is less than the legal minimum and its contrast with the background makes it “diffuse and blurred, preventing the possibility of its understanding directly and easily by the average consumer without the use of help mechanisms for reading “.