Legal

Irph conjunto de entidades desaparece

Forum irph stop gipuzkoa

Do you want to know in which cases IRPH mortgages can be claimed? Nowadays it is possible to claim the nullity of the IRPH index of your mortgage to the bank, since the European justice considers it lacking of transparency and modifiable by the financial entities.
The Mortgage Loan Reference Index, also known as IRPH, is one of the indexes used by financial institutions to update the interest rate of variable rate mortgages.
After Euribor, IRPH is the second most used indicator in mortgages. At the time, its implementation was due to the need for a new reference to protect customers from the oscillations of the financial markets that existed at the time, since the IRPH is more stable than the Euribor.
Over time it has been seen that the majority of mortgages adjusted to Euribor paid much less interest than mortgages with IRPH. Faced with this situation, customers of mortgages with IRPH began to file legal claims because they considered it to be an abusive clause.

Irph news

Many of the now defunct Savings Banks used the IRPH index (Indice de Referencia de Préstamos Hipotecarios) to reference their variable interest rate mortgages instead of the Euribor and as long as the interest rates remained more or less stable and the Savings Banks existed, there was no problem but from 2012-2013 came the collapse.
A mortgage referenced to the IRPH of Savings Banks plus a spread of 0 points is from September 2013 until today at an interest rate of 3.94% but a mortgage referenced to Euribor + 0.75 (to give an example that could very well be) was in September 2013 at 1.293% and today would be at 0.693%.
To solve the IRPH problem there is no other solution than to claim, first to the bank and later in court to request the nullity of the index as abusive, due to lack of reciprocity and it is necessary to request the application of a current review index. Likewise, it will be necessary to request the refund of the amounts overcharged by the application of the IRPH.

Mortgage irph

According to Robles, the Supreme Court also ruled that it was easy for the consumer to understand that the IRPH would always be higher than the Euribor “because there was a publication in the BOE of a banking sector circular of 1994 that provided the method of calculation” of the index. Therefore, the entity would be exonerated “from the duty of comparative and evolutionary information to the consumer of the different reference indexes most used existing at the time of the conclusion of the loan”. Robles now asks whether this is contrary to EU regulations.
If the judge understands that the mortgage contract does not survive without the clause relating to the interest rate that would eventually be declared abusive, can he not offer the consumer the choice “between the nullity of the contract or its integration”, asks Audicana. If the CJEU’s answer is negative, both judges question whether the IRPH rate initially applied in the contract – that of banks or that of savings banks, now abolished – can be replaced by the IRPH of all the institutions, since its calculation method is very similar to the previous ones and the effect would be the same.

Irph conjunto de entidades desaparece del momento

Esta es la cuestión que lleva desde hace muchos años y hay multitud de opiniones. El Tribunal Supremo dictaminó en 2017 que no era abusiva porque era una tasa oficial lo suficientemente transparente. Y posteriormente el tema llegó al TJUE y todo el mundo espera ansioso su fallo.
2.- ¿Qué tipo de información debe ofrecer la banca a los consumidores para que puedan tomar una decisión acertada y transparente? Me gustaría destacar aquí dos puntos. No es necesario que el banco ofrezca y compare varios y diferentes tipos de interés. El banco vende dinero pero no es un asesor financiero independiente. El otro es que el IRPH es un tipo de interés complejo y difícil de entender. Para empezar no se hace con la media de sólo los tipos de interés aplicados por las entidades afectadas sino con los tipos de interés, más las comisiones y los gastos lo que hace que el resultado final sea más elevado comparado con el método de cálculo del EURIBOR por ejemplo. El Banco de España instruyó que al utilizar el IRPH las entidades debían aplicar un porcentaje negativo para compensar las comisiones y gastos lo que encarece el tipo final. Esto casi nunca lo hicieron los bancos. Además, el IRPH es la media de los tipos utilizados por varias entidades pero todas tienen el mismo peso en su composición. No es una media ponderada sino una media simple. Así que los tribunales tendrán que valorar caso por caso la abusividad del uso del IRPH. Esto conducirá obviamente a un aumento salvaje de la litigiosidad. Lo cual es una práctica habitual de los bancos de todos modos. Pero producirá aún más retrasos en los procedimientos. Y me temo que estamos hablando de años.