№ – 538/2014
<адрес>DD.MM.YYYY
Dzerzhinsky District Court<адрес>composed of:
presiding judge Popov K.B.,
at the secretary FULL NAME5,
examined in open court session civil case on the claim of the Limited Liability Company "Cetelem Bank" to FULL NAME2 for the recovery of debt for loan agreement, foreclosing on mortgaged property,
U T A N O V & L:
LLC "Cetelem Bank" filed a lawsuit against FULL NAME2 for the recovery of debt under the loan agreement, foreclosure of the pledged property, in support of indicating that CB "BNP Paribas Vostok" LLC (hereinafter referred to as the "Bank" / "Creditor" ) and FULL NAME2 (hereinafter referred to as the "Borrower" / "Respondent") entered into an Agreement on the provision of a targeted consumer loan for the purchase of a car vehicle No. C 04100132928 dated DD.MM.YYYY (hereinafter referred to as the “Loan Agreement”), in accordance with which the Bank undertook to provide the Borrower with a loan in the amount of 202,000.00 rubles for a period of 24 months with a fee for using the loan in the amount of 14.5 percent per annum of the loan amount, and the Borrower undertakes to repay the loan on the terms and in the manner prescribed by the Loan Agreement. DD.MM.YYYY CB "BNP Paribas Vostok" LLC changed its corporate name to "Cetelem Bank" LLC, which was recorded in the Unified State Register legal entities(Certificate dated DD.MM.YYYY Ser. 77 No. 014387804). The target loan was provided to the Borrower for the purchase of a DaewooNexia car identification number (VIN) XWB3L32EDDA007062 and payment of the insurance premium under the Personal Accident Insurance Contract for Borrowers dated DD.MM.YYYY, concluded between the Borrower and CARDIF Insurance Company LLC, payment insurance premium under the CASCO insurance contract dated DD.MM.YYYY<адрес>Parts of the above Loan Agreement No. C 04100132928 dated DD.MM.YYYY are the Client's Application Form for issuing a loan, the General Conditions for Issuing and Servicing loan products"Cetelem Bank" LLC (hereinafter referred to as the General Conditions), Loan Payment Schedule and the Bank's Tariffs (hereinafter referred to as the Tariffs). DD.MM.YYYY, in order to ensure the proper fulfillment of the terms of the said Loan Agreement between Cetel Bank LLC and the Respondent, a Vehicle Pledge Agreement No. , identification number (VIN) XWB3L32EDDA007062, vehicle passport<адрес>. The Bank fulfilled its obligations under the Loan Agreement in full and provided the Borrower with a loan in full, as evidenced by the statement of account No. 40817810704100132928. The Respondent's debt under the Agreement on the provision of a targeted consumer loan for the purchase of a motor vehicle No. C 04100132928 dated DD.MM.YYYY to Cetel Bank LLC is: 167,711.85 rubles, of which: the amount of the principal debt under the Loan Agreement - 157,440.64 rubles, the amount of interest for use in cash - 5345.17 rubles, the amount of interest accrued on the overdue debt is 525.94 rubles. He asks the court to recover from the Defendant - FULL NAME2 in favor of "Cetelem Bank" LLC debt under the Agreement on the provision of a targeted consumer loan for the purchase of a vehicle in total amount- 167711.85 rubles. Foreclose on pledged property - vehicle DaewooNexia identification number (VEST) XWB3L32EDDA007062, vehicle passport<адрес>, by sale at public auction, set the initial selling price pledged property - vehicle identification number DaewooNexia (VPN) XWB3r32EDDA007062, vehicle passport<адрес>, in the amount of 133600.00 rubles. To recover from FULL NAME4 the benefit of "Cetelem Bank" Ltd. the costs of paying the state duty in the amount of 4554.24 rubles.
At the hearing, the representative of LLC "Cetelem Bank" did not appear, submitted a statement on the consideration of the case in his absence.
defendant FULL NAME2 at the hearing did not appear, the date and time of the hearing notified in a timely manner and properly, the reason for failure to appear court did not report objections to the claim did not provide. Earlier in the court session, he provided the original receipt confirming partial repayment debt in the amount of 50,000 rubles.
The court, having examined the written materials of the case, finds the claims subject to satisfaction on the following grounds.
By virtue of clause 1, part 1, article 8 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation civil rights and obligations arise from contracts and other transactions provided for by law, as well as from contracts and other transactions, although not provided for by law, but not contrary to it.
According to Article 307 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, by virtue of an obligation, one person (debtor) is obliged to perform a certain action in favor of another person (creditor), and the creditor has the right to demand that the debtor fulfill his obligation.
In accordance with Articles 309, 310 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, obligations must be performed properly in accordance with the terms of the obligation and the requirements of the law, other legal acts, and in the absence of such conditions and requirements, in accordance with business practices and other usually imposed requirements. Unilateral refusal to fulfill an obligation and unilateral change of its conditions are not allowed.
In accordance with Article 819 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, under a loan agreement, a bank or other credit organization (creditor) undertakes to provide funds (credit) to the borrower in the amount and on the terms stipulated by the agreement, and the borrower undertakes to return the amount received and pay interest on it.
On the basis of Article 432 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, an agreement is considered concluded if an agreement is reached between the parties, in the form required in the relevant cases, on all essential terms of the agreement. Essential are the conditions on the subject of the contract, the conditions that are named in the law or other legal acts as essential or necessary for contracts of this type, as well as all those conditions regarding which, at the request of one of the parties, an agreement must be reached.
established by the court.
CB "BNP Paribas Vostok" LLC (hereinafter referred to as the "Bank" / "Lender") and FULL NAME2 (hereinafter referred to as the "Borrower" / "Respondent") entered into an Agreement on the provision of a targeted consumer loan for the purchase of a motor vehicle No. C 04100132928 from DD. MM.YYYY (hereinafter referred to as the "Loan Agreement"), in accordance with which the Bank undertook to provide the Borrower with a loan in the amount of 202,000.00 rubles for a period of 24 months with a fee for using the loan in the amount of 14.5 percent per annum of the loan amount, and the Borrower undertook to repay the loan for conditions and in the manner prescribed by the Loan Agreement.
DD.MM.YYYY CB "BNP Paribas Vostok" LLC changed its corporate name to "Cetelem Bank" LLC, which was recorded in the Unified State Register of Legal Entities (Certificate dated DD.MM.YYYY Ser. 77 No. 014387804).
The target loan was provided to the Borrower for the purchase of a DaewooNexia car identification number (VIN) XWB3L32EDDA007062 and payment of the insurance premium under the Personal Accident Insurance Contract for Borrowers dated DD.MM.YYYY, concluded between the Borrower and CARDIF Insurance Company LLC, payment insurance premium under the CASCO insurance contract dated DD.MM.YYYY
The integral parts of the above Loan Agreement No. C 04100132928 dated DD.MM.YYYY are the Client's Application Questionnaire for issuing a loan, the General Conditions for Issuing and Servicing Loan Products by Cetelem Bank LLC (hereinafter referred to as the "General Conditions"), the Loan Payment Schedule and Tariffs Bank (hereinafter - Tariffs).
DD.MM.YYYY, in order to ensure the proper fulfillment of the terms of the said Loan Agreement between Cetel Bank LLC and the Respondent, a Vehicle Pledge Agreement No. , identification number (VIN) XWB3L32EDDA007062, vehicle passport<адрес>.
The Bank fulfilled its obligations under the Loan Agreement in full and provided the Borrower with a loan in full, which is confirmed by the statement of account No. 40817810704100132928.
The demand for full early repayment of the debt was sent to the Respondent, but has not been fulfilled to date.
The Respondent's debt under the Agreement on the provision of a targeted consumer loan for the purchase of a motor vehicle No. C 04100132928 dated DD.MM.YYYY to Cetel Bank LLC is: 167,711.85 rubles, of which: the amount of the principal debt under the Loan Agreement - 157,440.64 rubles, the amount of interest for use in cash - 5345.17 rubles, the amount of interest accrued on the overdue debt is 525.94 rubles.
In accordance with Art. 819 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the rules stipulated by the provisions on the Loan apply to relations under a loan agreement. In accordance with Art. 810 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation The borrower is obliged to return to the lender the received loan amount on time and in the manner prescribed by the loan agreement.
According to part 2 of Art. 811 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, if the loan agreement provides for the return of the loan in installments (in installments), then if the borrower violates the deadline set for the return of the next part of the loan, the lender has the right to demand early repayment of the entire remaining loan amount together with the interest due.
According to Art. 309 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, obligations must be properly performed in accordance with the terms of the obligation.
Thus, at the court session it was established that the Respondent's debt under the Contract for the provision of a targeted consumer loan for the purchase of a motor vehicle No. C 04100132928 dated DD.MM.YYYY to Setel Bank LLC amounts to 167,711 rubles 85 kopecks.
Taking into account the above requirements of the law, the circumstances of the case, established at the hearing, the court considers the claims for the recovery of debt under the loan agreement reasonable and subject to satisfaction, in part.
As established at the hearing, the plaintiff, during the consideration of the case, voluntarily fulfilled his obligations, paid the debt under the loan agreement in the amount of 50,000 rubles, which is confirmed by a cash receipt order No. DD.MM.YYYY
Consequently, the debt to the bank after the plaintiff's partial fulfillment of his obligations amounts to 117,711 rubles 85 kopecks.
If the Borrower violates its obligations under the agreement, the Bank has the right to foreclose on the pledged property and sell it.
Taking into account the above circumstances, the court considers it necessary to satisfy the plaintiff's claims for foreclosure on the pledged property - DaewooNexia model car identification number (VIN) XWB3L32EDDA007062, the owner of which is currently FULL NAME2
As follows from the conclusion on the revaluation of the market value of the vehicle, the market value of the pledged vehicle amounted to 167,000 rubles.
Thus, taking into account the terms of the pledge agreement, which provide for the initial sale value as 80% of the market value, the initial sale value of the vehicle is 133,600 rubles.
Due to the absence of objections from the defendant, the court considers it necessary to determine the initial sale value of the car in the amount of 133,600 rubles.
In accordance with Art. 98 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation to the party in whose favor the decision of the court took place, the court awards to compensate on the other hand all the legal costs incurred in the case in proportion to the satisfaction of the requirements.
The court found that when filing a claim, the plaintiff paid a state duty in the amount of 4554 rubles 24 kopecks, which is confirmed by a payment order.
Since the claims of the plaintiff against the defendant are partially satisfied, then from the defendant FULL NAME2 in favor of LLC «Setelem Bank» in respect of reimbursement of expenses for the payment of the state duty, 3554 rubles 23 kopecks are to be recovered.
Guided by Articles 194-199 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the court
the claims of the Limited Liability Company "Cetelem Bank" to FULL NAME2 for the recovery of debt under the loan agreement, foreclosure of the pledged property - partially satisfy.
Collect from FULL NAME2 the debt under the Agreement on the provision of a targeted consumer loan for the purchase of a motor vehicle No. C 04100132928 from DD.MM.YYYY in the amount of 117,711 rubles 85 kopecks.
Foreclose on the pledged property - car model Daewoo Nexia, identification number (VIN) XWB3L32EDDA007062, owned by FULL NAME2, setting the sale price of the car in the amount of 133,600 rubles.
Collect from FULL NAME2 in favor of the Limited Liability Company "Cetelem Bank", to reimburse the costs of paying the state duty in the amount of 3554 rubles 23 kopecks.
To satisfy the rest of the claims of the Limited Liability Company "Cetelem Bank" to FULL NAME2 for the recovery of debt under the loan agreement, court costs - refuse.
The decision can be appealed on appeal through the Dzerzhinsky District Court<адрес>in the Volgograd Regional Court within a month from the date of the final decision of the court.
The final decision was made by DD.MM.YYYY.
Do you think you are Russian? Born in the USSR and think that you are Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian? No. This is not true.
You are actually Russian, Ukrainian or Belarusian. But you think you are a Jew.
Game? Wrong word. Right word"imprinting".
A newborn associates himself with those facial features that he observes immediately after birth. This natural mechanism is characteristic of most living beings with vision.
Newborns in the USSR for the first few days saw their mother have a minimum of feeding time, and most time we saw the faces of the staff of the maternity hospital. By a strange coincidence, they were (and still are) mostly Jewish. Reception is wild in its essence and effectiveness.
All your childhood you wondered why you live surrounded by non-native people. Rare Jews on your path could do anything with you, because you were drawn to them, while others were repelled. Yes, even now they can.
You cannot fix this - imprinting is one-time and for life. It is difficult to understand, the instinct took shape when you were still very far from being able to formulate. From that moment, no words or details have been preserved. Only facial features remained in the depths of memory. Those traits that you consider your family.
3 commentsSystem and Observer
Let us define a system as an object whose existence is not in doubt.
An observer of a system is an object that is not a part of the system it observes, that is, it determines its existence, including through factors independent of the system.
From the point of view of the system, the observer is a source of chaos - both control actions and the consequences of observational measurements that do not have a causal relationship with the system.
An internal observer is a potentially achievable object for the system in relation to which the inversion of the observation and control channels is possible.
An external observer is even an object potentially unattainable for the system, located beyond the event horizon of the system (spatial and temporal).
Hypothesis #1. All-seeing eye
Let's assume that our universe is a system and it has an external observer. Then observational measurements can take place, for example, with the help of "gravitational radiation" penetrating the universe from all sides from the outside. The capture cross section of "gravitational radiation" is proportional to the mass of the object, and the projection of the "shadow" from this capture onto another object is perceived as an attractive force. It will be proportional to the product of the masses of objects and inversely proportional to the distance between them, which determines the density of the "shadow".
The capture of "gravitational radiation" by an object increases its randomness and is perceived by us as a passage of time. An object that is opaque to "gravitational radiation", the capture cross section of which is larger than the geometric size, looks like a black hole inside the universe.
Hypothesis #2. Internal Observer
It is possible that our universe is watching itself. For example, using pairs of quantum entangled particles spaced apart in space as standards. Then the space between them is saturated with the probability of the existence of the process that generated these particles, which reaches its maximum density at the intersection of the trajectories of these particles. The existence of these particles also means the absence of a sufficiently large capture cross section on the trajectories of objects capable of absorbing these particles. The remaining assumptions remain the same as for the first hypothesis, except:
Time flow
External observation of an object approaching the event horizon of a black hole, if the “outside observer” is the determining factor of time in the universe, will slow down exactly twice - the shadow from the black hole will block exactly half of the possible trajectories of “gravitational radiation”. If the determining factor is the "internal observer", then the shadow will block the entire trajectory of interaction and the flow of time for an object falling into a black hole will completely stop for a view from the outside.
Also, the possibility of combining these hypotheses in one proportion or another is not excluded.
DEFINITION
November 24, 2017 The Reutov City Court of the Moscow Region, composed of: the presiding judge Kornienko M.V., with the secretary of the court session Denisenko N.V., having considered in the preliminary court session the civil case on the statement of claim of LLC "Cetelem Bank" against Golosov Alexander Alexandrovich for the recovery of debt on a credit agreement and foreclosure on the subject of pledge,
U T A N O V & L:
In the proceedings of the Reutov City Court of the Moscow Region since DD.MM.YYYY, there is a civil case on the claim of LLC "Cetelem Bank" against Golosov Alexander Alexandrovich for the recovery of debt under a loan agreement and foreclosure on the subject of collateral. The claim is motivated by the fact that LLC "Cetelem Bank" and Golosov Alexander Alekseevich concluded an agreement on the provision of a targeted consumer loan for the purchase of a motor vehicle No.<данные изъяты>dated DD.MM.YYYY, in accordance with which the Bank undertook to provide the defendant with a loan in the amount of - 920540.00 rubles for a period of 60 months with a fee for using the loan in the amount of 17.90 percent per annum of the loan amount, and the Respondent undertook to repay the loan on the terms and in the manner established by the Loan Agreement.
DD.MM.YYYY<данные изъяты>» LLC changed its corporate name to "Cetelem Bank" LLC, which was recorded in the Unified State Register of Legal Entities (Certificate dated DD.MM.YYYY, Ser. No. No.).
Purpose loan was granted to the Respondent for the purchase of a car<данные изъяты>identification number (VIN) No. and payment of the insurance premium under the Personal Accident Insurance Contract dated DD.MM.YYYY and payment of the insurance premium under the CASCO Insurance Contract dated DD.MM.YYYY
Ensuring the proper fulfillment of the terms of the said loan agreement between Cetel Bank LLC and the Respondent is a motor vehicle -<данные изъяты>identification number (VIN) no.
The provisions and essential terms of the agreement on the pledge of the vehicle are contained in the loan agreement No. No. dated DD.MM.YYYY, concluded between the Respondent and Cetel Bank LLC, clause 3 Loan security.
The Bank fulfilled its obligations under the Loan Agreement in full and provided the Respondent with a loan in full, as evidenced by the statement on account No.
According to the terms of the Loan Agreement, the client undertakes to repay the Bank the amount of the principal debt, pay commissions and interest for the use of the Loan for the entire period of use of funds in accordance with the terms of this Agreement later than the date the last payment on the loan specified in the Payment Schedule by making monthly payments.
The defendant did not fulfill his obligations in a timely manner, which led to the formation of debt and grounds for going to court. Demand for repayment of debt, sending by the plaintiff to the defendant in judicial order, was not executed last.
Based on the foregoing, the representative of the plaintiff asks the court to recover from the defendant in favor of Cetelem Bank LLC the debt under the Agreement on the provision of a targeted consumer loan for the purchase of a motor vehicle in the total amount of 827,606.14 rubles.<данные изъяты>» identification number (V1N) No. by public sale. Set the initial sale price of the pledged property - a motor vehicle, a car of the brand "<данные изъяты>» identification number (VIN) № , in the amount of 4439000.00 rubles. recover from the defendant in favor of «Setelem Bank» Ltd. expenses for payment of state duty in the amount of 11476.06 RUB.
The representative of the plaintiff, being notified of the time and day judicial trial did not appear in court.
The Court, after reviewing the materials of the case, considers it possible to terminate the proceedings.
Based on Art. 222 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the court leaves the application without consideration if in the proceedings of this or another court, the arbitration court there is a previously initiated case on a dispute between the same parties, on the same subject and on the same grounds.
When concluding a loan agreement, the obligatory requirement of the bank and the essential condition of the loan agreement was the obligation of the borrower to conclude an insurance agreement against car theft with the insurer specified by the bank - Insurance Company Investments and Finance JSC (clauses 1 and 21 of the agreement), the beneficiary was the bank . Also, a mandatory and essential condition of the loan agreement was the transfer of the car to the bank as a pledge (clause 10). The defendant was paid by JSC IC "Investments and Finances" insurance premium. DD.MM.YYYY, an insured event occurred - a corner of the car, about which the borrower notified law enforcement agencies and the bank in a timely manner in writing DD.MM.YYYY
From the submitted documents, it is seen that since DD.MM.YYYY, the Moscow Arbitration Court has filed a case on the application of Cetelem Bank LLC to Investments and Finance Insurance Company JSC for inclusion in the register of creditors' claims of the debtor under loan agreement No. No. dated DD.MM.YYYY
Based on the aforesaid and guided by Article. 222 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, court
O P R E D E L I L:
Terminate the civil proceedings on the claim of Cetelem Bank LLC against Alexander Alexandrovich Golosov for the recovery of debt under the loan agreement and foreclosure of the collateral.
A private complaint may be filed against the ruling with the Moscow Regional Court through the Reutov City Court within 15 days.
<данные изъяты>
Telephone consultation 8 800 505-91-11
The call is free
Bank Setelem
There was a credit card setelem bank, its validity expired in 2016. Earlier, before the end of the service period, he fully repaid the debt and called the bank to close the card. I was told that it was necessary to contact the bank and write an application, but I went to another region and could not do this. I did not receive a reissued card and did not use it. I forgot about the card, made a request in kbi, saw the card, called the bank with a question about closing, they said that I had a debt of 10 thousand with a little. Question: what should I do to close the card and not pay an incomprehensible debt for an unfulfilled service?
Perhaps you have not fully repaid the debt or the bank has set a penalty for something. You first need to request a debt calculation from the bank and understand what this amount is.
A question about Setelem Bank, extended CASCO on time, but did not provide data to the bank, a fine of 10 thousand rubles was charged.
Any fine is a measure of responsibility, taking into account the degree of guilt, and other circumstances, the application of a fine should not entail unjust enrichment of the bank. The issue is resolved on an individual basis. Apply to the bank. State your justifications and arguments about the disproportionate penalty. What harm from this bank? If it doesn't work out on your own, give us a call.
Setelem Bank, the money for the loan was transferred to the account, the application for early defeat was submitted on 03/19/19, but the bank believes that early repayment of the loan is possible only one month after the application, and you will have to pay for one more month.
Stanislav, the bank correctly considers, unless a notice for more than short term. Part 2 Art. 810 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation Unless otherwise provided by the loan agreement, the amount of an interest-free loan may be returned by the borrower ahead of schedule in full or in part. (as amended by Federal Law No. 212-FZ of July 26, 2017) The amount of a loan granted at interest to a borrower-citizen for personal, family, home or other use not related to business activities may be returned by the borrower-citizen ahead of schedule in full or at in parts, provided that the lender is notified of this at least thirty days before the day of such return. The loan agreement may establish a shorter term for notifying the lender of the borrower's intention to return the funds ahead of schedule. (As amended by Federal Law No. 284-FZ of October 19, 2011) The amount of a loan granted at interest in other cases may be repaid ahead of schedule with the consent of the lender, including the consent expressed in the loan agreement. (The paragraph was introduced by Federal Law No. 284-FZ of October 19, 2011; as amended by Federal Law No. 212-FZ of July 26, 2017)
Car loan. Casco took for 3 years. Now Setelem Bank requires to provide an extension of Casco. They imposed a fine of 10,000. They call every day from pre-trial proceedings. I can’t find a clause in the contract obliging me to renew the Casco. Help.
Nobody can answer correctly. This is regulated - only by the terms of the agreement between you and the bank, and no one can know it.
Good day! You need to look at the contract, send it to the mail! Any questions left!? Write in a personal! Be sure to write a review!
Hello? For a reliable answer to your question, you need to read the terms of the loan agreement.
Cetelem Bank demands to extend Casco. They imposed a fine of 10,000 rubles. But I can’t find a clause in my contract whether I am obliged to renew this Casco. They call constantly from pre-trial proceedings. Help me what to do. 5 months left to pay for the car.
Diana, if there is no clause in the contract that obliges you to renew CASCO, then the bank has gone beyond the terms of the contract. Write a complaint against the bank to the Central Bank of the Russian Federation.
In October 2015, the court decision entered into force claims setelem bank for the recovery of debt under the loan agreement. In December 2015, an individual entrepreneur was initiated ... the court decision was not executed ...
Hello! It is necessary to look at the case materials, see what the bailiffs did, sue the bailiffs for damages if they could execute the court decision, but still have not done it through their own fault.
Cetelem Bank says that you can not close a car loan earlier than 30 days from the date of the application for early repayment. The money is already in the account. The salon is waiting for a certificate of closing the loan and TCP. What to do? Wait a month? Or is it possible to do it earlier?
Olga, according to the law on consumer needs. Loan, if the loan agreement does not establish a shorter period, then the borrower is obliged to notify the bank of the early repayment of the loan at least 30 calendar days(part 4 of article 11). That is, in this case, the bank's requirement is legal. However, if you applied to the bank with a request for early repayment of the loan within the first 30 days from the date of its receipt, then such a bank requirement is illegal (part 3 of article 11).
Cetelem Bank calls after bankruptcy, demanding to pay off the debt, arguing that they did not receive any information, although everything was sent to them, and all information about my bankruptcy is publicly available on the arbitration website and in the filing cabinet.
Send a letter with the details of your bankruptcy trustee. All claims should be directed to him.
Hello, Elena! Don't worry, send the bankruptcy court decision to the bank.
Good afternoon! Let him call, the main thing is to check your mail, otherwise they may file a lawsuit, BUT having learned about it, you simply send the judicial act of the Arbitration Court to the court (decision, ruling)
I pay a car loan to Setelem Bank, I overdue the purchase of CASCO, (but bought) I was fined 10,000 rubles. (this is stipulated in the contract and they were also hurt by the fact that I did not buy insurance from their representative) the point is, can the Bank remove the amount of the fine from the amount I pay for the principal debt that I pay monthly?
Read the contract, most likely there is such a sequence of repayment and it costs, first legal costs, then penalties, then interest, then the main debt. Look for the order of repayment in the contract.
I received an SMS from Creditexpr Debt "Cetelem Bank" LLC, 88OO5OO55O9 to KEF LLC, call 88002220483, although I am not familiar with this bank at all.
We do not deal with these issues.
These are collectors. Ignore, otherwise they can write off a round sum from the phone and the bank account linked to it.
About five years ago, I took a credit card from Cetelem Bank LLC in the amount of 40,000 tr.
At first he paid regularly, then the so-called black line, and it became impossible to pay, I just stopped paying.
Over these five years, about six companies "COLLECTORS" have changed who called, threatened, etc., etc.
Now they are demanding to recover about 128,000 thousand rubles from me, everything is tactful and accurate.
Immediately the question is whether the amount of interest and penalties exceed the amount of the principal debt-? How should I be in this situation.
I understand that even if I start paying in favor of Setelem LLC-> 5 tr per month, the amount of interest and late fees will still accumulate more, thus vicious circle., you can pay for life.
My requests to sue me are denied (again, I don’t understand why-?)
Once in my life, I also took a credit card from AVANGARD bank with a limit of 16,000 tr.
There were also delays, singing, calls from collectors and visits to the address., They asked to pay 54,000 tr.
It ended with me being sued, I lost the court, and the bailiffs ordered me to PAY 16,000 rubles + 1,600 payment in favor of the bailiffs.
There was no talk of 54,000 tr.
In relation to the bank Setelem, I want to achieve the same result, because I do not refuse to pay, but I cannot pay the requested amount by collectors.
As much as possible-?
Good day to you. Interest on microloans since January 2017 cannot exceed the amount of debt by more than three times. The Central Bank warned about the restriction, but you made out a loan before the introduction of the law. Most likely expired limitation period which is 3 years so I advise you not to pay at all. I wish you good luck in resolving your issue.
Have a nice day! Cetelem Bank was once an independent bank, but now it is a joint project, one of the parties in which is Sberbank (and the latter, as you understand, will collect debts by all means) The amount of interest and penalties, indeed, may exceed the amount of the principal debt (this answer to the question) In your case (if it is impossible to pay the loan), as a lawyer with a long work experience, I recommend: 1. blocking all calls from collectors on your phone (their activities in Russia in most cases are outside the law); 2. wait for receipt court order(it is issued without the presence of the plaintiff and the defendant) 3. appeal against the court order 4. practice - no one statement of claim does not submit) Write to me and I will describe everything in more detail.
It is quite likely that, according to the requirements for you arising from the agreement on credit card the statute of limitations has already expired, and this is a serious obstacle to judicial recovery debt from you. With your proper behavior, of course. I recommend that you immediately physically stop all communication with collectors, monitor and respond only to court notices.
Good afternoon! It depends on the collectors how everything is arranged. Vanguard does. In general, do not pay and wait for the court. In any case, I do not recommend paying any amount by call or by "paper".
On December 19, 2017, a car loan for a period of 5 years was taken from Cetelem Bank LLC. According to the terms, it was necessary to join the Program of collective voluntary insurance of borrowers "Cetelem Bank" LLC together with LLC IC "Sberbank life insurance" for the entire loan period in the amount of 113 thousand rubles.
On November 2, 2018, the loan was repaid ahead of schedule.
Is it possible to get a part of the sum insured back?
Hello Vladimir! There is such an opportunity, since when repaying a loan ahead of schedule, the possibility of insured event actually dropped. But insurance companies do not really want to return part of the insurance premium. You must write an application to insurance company in case of refusal, go to court. Law of the Russian Federation of February 7, 1992 N 2300-1 (as amended on June 4, 2018) "On Protection of Consumer Rights"
Hello Vladimir! I disagree with my colleague. Judicial practice proceeds from the fact that in case of early repayment of a loan, the possibility of an insured event does not disappear, and the courts take the side of insurance companies and banks. Therefore, you need to carefully study the terms of insurance. If your right to a refund of the sum insured is not indicated there, then, alas, it is very unlikely that it will be possible to recover.
I live in the village of Bolshoe Sorokino, Tyumen Region. I worked at Setelem Bank LLC as a loan officer in a NORD store in my village. The NORD store was closed and the point was removed while I was on maternity leave, and I went on maternity leave in 2015 and still on maternity leave, i.e. from decree to decree. In 2010, I have to get out of maternity leave, but I do not have this branch in the village, and it is only in Tyumen. They offer me to work in Tyumen, but I have 4 minor children. Or told to quit own will. How can I help me.
Since an employment contract has been concluded between you and the employer, he without fail contains a condition on the place of performance of work - a specific administrative-territorial unit of the area (the village of B. Sorokino). A change in the place of work according to the Labor Code of the Russian Federation is allowed by agreement of the parties, that is, with your written consent. Write a letter to the employer, tell the date of exit from the decree and demand workplace on the terms of the prisoner employment contract. Let them now have a headache how to employ you, perhaps they will offer you options that are beneficial to you.
Car loan, Setelem bank. I paid the amount needed for early repayment. The bank has a requirement to apply for early repayment 30 days in advance. Do they have a right?
If you signed an agreement with a bank in which the bank has a requirement to apply for early repayment in 30 days, then everything is legal.
Hello. Just negotiate with the bank, look for money and repay the loan. Otherwise, the bailiffs will impose a penalty on the car.
Or challenge the pledge agreement if it is drawn up with violations. There are other options, but again, it all depends on the terms of the contract. In some cases, the car is sold and the buyer is subsequently found to be in good faith. For a more detailed study of the situation, you can apply for a personal consultation at the contacts below. Yours faithfully, the lawyer in Volgograd - Stepanov Vadim Igorevich.
Setelem Bank has a car loan, the bank charged a fine for not providing comprehensive insurance, and when I paid the next payment on the loan, the bank considered it a payment of a fine of 20 thousand and now the loan is overdue.
Hello. Banks often cheat with payments, you need to familiarize yourself with your contract and, if possible, cancel the fine and transfer it to a payment.
Setelem Bank imposed a fine for untimely prolongation of CASCO. How to dispute?
What do you have in the terms of the contract? I take it this is a car loan? Look pzhsta. After all, a contract is when two parties agree on certain conditions and putting their signature, they confirm that they have come to an agreement on all points and affirm their intentions to fulfill the conditions set forth in the contract. If there really was a violation of the essential terms of the contract on your part, then the imposition of a fine (if it is also provided for by the contract) is quite a place to be.
Good afternoon! If a this fine stipulated by your loan agreement, then challenge given fact useless. You yourself agreed to this condition when signing the contract. All the best!
I took a loan from "Cetelem Bank" 200,000 rubles. 06/09/2018 Tomorrow, 06/25/2018, I wanted to completely close it, it so happened that the money was not needed. But I found out that I have a loan amount of 284,977 rubles. I called the bank. I was told that this Additional services, finding it difficult to specifically explain which ones. I looked through the contract, I realized, insurance, which they didn’t even mention to me when applying for a loan. We talked and highlighted with a marker the amount of the monthly payment, the date of payment, and the phone number hotline etc. etc., everything except the loan amount. I do not disclaim responsibility, I knew that insurance would be included, but I did not think that it would be in the loan amount. This is not the first time I have taken loans (in other banks), but this is the first time I have come across this.
I read that you can cancel the insurance within 14 days, but, alas, 14 days have already passed. What should be my actions now? I have to pay a loan, taking into account insurance - 284,977 rubles, then write a claim for the return of insurance? Pay the amount of the main loan - 200,000 rubles. and write a claim for the return of insurance to the bank? Or is there another option?
You need to look at the conditions of insurance in order to understand whether or not it makes sense to write now a demand for the return of the entire amount, or write after repayment for the return of part of the amount, which insurance is individual or collective?
Good evening. All of the options you have listed are possible, but since it will be difficult to refuse insurance after the cooling period, I advise you to pay off the entire amount of the debt. Otherwise, you will get a penalty and a bad credit history. Now you can refuse insurance only if it is separately indicated in the insurance contract, which I strongly doubt.
General rule: The presence in the insurance contract of a condition on the impossibility of the insurance company to return part of the unused insurance premium under the insurance contract concluded during the execution of the loan agreement, in case of early repayment of the loan, indicates that the presentation of a claim to the insurance company for the return of part of the unused insurance premium under the insurance contract is illegal. But there is also an opposite position. According to paragraph 1 of Art. 934 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, under a personal insurance contract, one party (the insurer) undertakes, for the fee stipulated by the contract (insurance premium) paid by the other party (the insured), to pay a lump sum or pay periodically the amount stipulated by the contract (the sum insured) in the event of harm to the life or health of the insured himself or another citizen (insured person) named in the contract, if he reaches a certain age or the occurrence in his life of another event (insured event) provided for by the contract. In accordance with paragraph 1 of Art. 958 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, an insurance contract is terminated before the deadline for which it was concluded, if after its entry into force the possibility of an insured event has disappeared and the existence of an insured risk has ceased due to circumstances other than an insured event. Such circumstances, in particular, include: - loss of the insured property for reasons other than the occurrence of an insured event; - termination in due course entrepreneurial activity a person who has insured the business risk or the risk of civil liability associated with this activity. Based on paragraph 2 of Art. 958 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the insured (beneficiary) has the right to cancel the insurance contract at any time, if by the time of refusal the possibility of an insured event has not disappeared due to the circumstances specified in paragraph 1 of Art. 958 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Paragraph 3 of Art. 958 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation provides that in the event of early termination of the insurance contract due to the circumstances specified in paragraph 1 of Art. 958 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the insurer is entitled to a part of the insurance premium in proportion to the time during which the insurance was valid. In case of early refusal of the insured (beneficiary) from the insurance contract, the insurance premium paid to the insurer shall not be refunded, unless otherwise provided by the contract. Based on judicial practice, if the agreement between the parties did not provide for the return of the paid insurance premium in the event of early fulfillment by the borrower of obligations under the loan agreement in full, there are no grounds for collecting the insurance premium ( Appellate ruling Moscow City Court dated 02.07.2014 in case No. 33-25547). The refund of part of the insurance premium is provided for in certain cases; early payment Money under the loan agreement does not apply to such a basis (Appeal ruling of the Chelyabinsk regional court dated August 21, 2014 in case No. 11-8675/2014). The position according to which it is unlawful to demand that the insurance company return a part of the unused insurance premium under the insurance contract concluded during the execution of the loan agreement, in case of early repayment of the loan and provided that the insurance contract contains a condition on the impossibility of such payment, is reflected in the Appeal ruling of Lipetsky Regional Court dated March 25, 2015 in case N 33-694/2015, Appellate ruling Supreme Court Republic of Bashkortostan dated February 24, 2015 in case N 33-2772 / 2015, Appeal ruling of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan dated September 14, 2015 in case N 33-13540 / 2015, Appeal ruling of the Moscow City Court dated November 26, 2015 in case N 33-44560 / 2015. Meanwhile in judicial practice there is an approach by virtue of which, in the event of early repayment of the loan agreement, securing the repayment of the loan through life insurance has ceased to be necessary for the insured, as a result of which such a person has the right to return the insurance premium in proportion to the term of the insurance agreement (Appeal ruling of the Moscow Regional Court dated 11.03.2015 to case N 33-5345 / 2015, Appeal ruling of the Omsk Regional Court dated February 4, 2015 in case N 33-566 / 15).
You can return the insurance in full only when the loan was repaid within the first month of the period stipulated by the contract. Therefore, you should pay the amount arising from the loan agreement, article 819 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, and then write a claim for the return of insurance. The claim must be considered within 10 days if you do not receive the insurance within this period, you will have to apply to the court of article 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation with a claim of article 131 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation on the recovery of insurance. In fact, you have no other option to return the insurance.
Hello Nella! As a general rule, the insurance premium is non-refundable by virtue of part 3 of article 958 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, unless otherwise specified in the contract. If your contract states that the insurance premium is non-refundable, then it is quite difficult to return it. There is an option to return the money under the Federal Law on consumer protection in connection with the imposition of a service (violation of Articles 16, 16.1 of the said law) and improper information about it (Articles 10, 12 of the law). But the fact of imposition and improper information is very difficult to prove if the documents indicate that you are familiar with all the conditions and you independently signed such a condition. AT this case you can take the path of proving the imposition of a service or improper information about it through the Federal Service. Write a complaint to Rospotrebnadzor about the actions of the bank. If Rospotrebnadzor confirms the imposition of the service, about which a protocol will be drawn up and a decision on bringing to administrative responsibility will be issued, then it will be easier to prove the fact of imposition in court and, accordingly, return your money. In practice, they try to return the amount of the insurance premium through improper information about the service, as well as in the presence of the fact that the insurance bank did not transfer funds (which happens very often). In fact, the bank has unjust enrichment, which is subject to return under Article 1102 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. The Bank is obliged to inform you in full about the service in accordance with Articles 10.12 of the Federal Law on consumer protection.
Hello. None of the suggested options will work. If a longer period for the return of insurance is not provided for by your contract, then only to resolve the issue in court, just as you probably understand yourself, no one will return the insurance to you, and you will have to prove in court, for example, that this insurance was imposed on you. Bank of Russia Ordinance No. 3854-U dated November 20, 2015 "On the minimum (standard) requirements for the conditions and procedure for certain types voluntary insurance" (with amendments and additions) 1. When carrying out voluntary insurance (with the exception of cases of voluntary insurance provided for in paragraph 4 of this Direction), the insurer must provide for a condition on the return of the paid insurance premium to the insured in the manner prescribed by this Directive, in the event of the insured's refusal from the contract of voluntary insurance within fourteen calendar days from the date of its conclusion, regardless of the moment of payment of the insurance premium, in the absence of given period events that have signs of an insured event. 2. When carrying out voluntary insurance, the insurer has the right to provide for a longer period than the period established by paragraph 1 of this Direction.
Yes, you will need to repay the loan ahead of schedule, and then demand the termination of the insurance contract and the return of the balance of the insurance premium attributable to the unused period. The insurance contract, in accordance with paragraph 1 of Directive of the Bank of Russia dated November 20, 2015 N 3854-U "On the minimum (standard) requirements for the conditions and procedure for the implementation of certain types of voluntary insurance", provided for the return of the insurance premium within 14 days, i.e. . It was possible to cancel the insurance contract at least during this period. In this case, by virtue of paragraph two of clause 3 of article 958 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the insurance premium must be returned to the insurer to the insured. Alas, this deadline has passed, and everything becomes not so simple. As a rule, the beneficiary under the insurance contract is the bank, and the insurance contract is associated with the loan agreement, as a result of which the early fulfillment of obligations under the loan entails the possibility of terminating the insurance contract in accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 958 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, according to which: the insurance contract is terminated before the onset of the period for which it was concluded, if after its entry into force the possibility of an insured event has disappeared and the existence of an insured risk has ceased due to circumstances other than an insured event. The insured risk of non-payment of the debt under the loan agreement will disappear in this case, which means that there will be no possibility of an insured event in the form of late payment or non-payment of a loan with interest to the bank. And this means that in accordance with paragraph one of clause 3 of article 958 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, in case of early termination of the insurance contract due to the circumstances specified in clause 1 of article 958 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the insurer has the right to part of the insurance premium in proportion to the time during which insurance was in effect", and this norm (paragraph one, clause 3, article 958 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) has priority over the norm given in paragraph two, clause 3, article 958 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (where, in the event of early refusal of the insured (beneficiary) from the insurance contract, the amount paid to the insurer the insurance premium is non-refundable, unless otherwise provided by the contract), i.e. this rule is applied in the first place. After all, the insurance contract was not concluded on its own, but is inextricably linked with the loan agreement, which is confirmed by the data on the beneficiary - the bank. in Russian, this means that in case of early repayment of the loan, you have the right to demand the termination of the inextricably linked insurance agreement with the loan agreement with the return of the balance of the insurance premium, pertaining to the unused period. Submit any request to writing. Submit the application in two copies, on one of which (your) get a mark of acceptance with a seal, date, position, name and signature of the person who received it, as well as an incoming number. And in case of refusal, send the application by registered mail with a notification and a description of the attachment, as well as a postal worker's mark on your copy. Well, the extreme option (if a year has not passed since the conclusion of the contract): if the obligation to insure follows from the loan agreement, then this is a violation of Article 16 of the Law on Consumer Protection, according to which "the terms of the contract that infringe on the rights of the consumer compared to the rules established by laws or other legal acts Russian Federation in the field of consumer protection are recognized as invalid".
If you have been negligent when concluding the contract. That Paragraph 3 of Art. 958 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation provides that in the event of early termination of the insurance contract due to the circumstances specified in paragraph 1 of Art. 958 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the insurer is entitled to a part of the insurance premium in proportion to the time during which the insurance was valid. Pay off the loan. Write an application and return part sum insured.
I took a loan from "Cetelem Bank" 200,000 rubles. 06/09/2018 Tomorrow I wanted to close it completely, but I discovered only now that I have a loan amount of 284,977 rubles. I was told over the phone that these are additional services. Well, as I understand it, insurance, which was not even mentioned to me when applying for a loan, specifically that it is included in the loan amount. This is not the first time I have taken a loan, but this is the first time I have encountered such a thing. I read that within 14 days it was possible to refuse insurance, but, alas, 14 days have already passed. What should I do now? Will this money be returned to me if tomorrow I pay the entire amount - 284,977 rubles?
If you close ahead of schedule, you will be able to return the balance of the insurance premium on the basis of Article 958 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, because. termination of obligations under a loan agreement entails the possibility of terminating the insurance agreement in accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 958 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, according to which “the insurance agreement is terminated before the deadline for which it was concluded, if after its entry into force the possibility of an insured event has disappeared and the existence of the insured risk has ceased due to circumstances other than the insured event.
The bank in which the car loan was taken did not enter the car into the register of pledges, if it is sold now, can new buyers have problems with the car, we will continue to pay the loan on time, and after the sale, can the bank enter it into the register of pledges?!
Hello Gulnara, not only they can, but they will arise, buyers will have to prove that they are bona fide buyers, and if they do not prove this, they will charge you, as for the second question, the bank has the right to enter data into the register at any time. You can make a tripartite agreement in which you, the bank and the buyer will act. The buyer will close the loan, and the remaining funds will be transferred to you.
Received a notification from Cetelem Bank about holding a pending trial personal meeting on debt, what to do tell me?
Good afternoon! What is written in the notice does not mean that the meeting will actually take place. In general, it is up to you to decide whether you want to communicate with representatives of the bank or not, if you have the opportunity to resolve the issue in pre-trial procedure or not.
Take a notice, fold it into 4-8 layers and put it under the leg of a wobbly chair. You are not obliged to let anyone go home except government agencies.
Auto credit network bank. Delays 4 months. threaten to sue.
Hello. The Bank has the right to judicially recover the existing debt + fines, penalties, forfeits, etc. It is more profitable for you to negotiate with the bank and find a way out of the situation, otherwise legal costs will be added to the debt. If the car is pledged to the bank, then it is possible that the bank will demand to foreclose on the collateral.
Setelem bank auto loan delinquency.4 months. I pay but not the full amount is threatened by the court. I can take the car. I've been crying for a year now. what to do.
Good day to you. If you really have delays, then the bank has every right to go to court. I wish you good luck in resolving your issue.
In 2013, I took a TV set on credit through Setelem Bank LLC. I paid for some time, but due to circumstances I could not pay, in 2016 I paid off the debt along with interest through the RO UFSSP, but in March 2018 I was sent a notice of assignment of the debt how to do what to do.
Hello. If you have definitely paid everything, ignore this notice. If they start calling you, say that the debt has been fully paid by you through the FSSP.
Hello. To do nothing. You have a court decision, there is a writ of execution in the FSSP. Only they have the right to collect the debt. If they call you from the collection service, you can tell them that you are paying the bailiffs on the writ of execution.
02/07/2017 I took the required. Loan to LLC Setelem Bank. For the amount of 47532.64 rubles. Together with the loan, they gave me a card with a credit limit of 93,000 rubles. The account of the loan and the card was the same, and the amount of consumption was deducted from the limit of 93 thousand. Credit. There was about 45 thousand left on the card. When I needed to activate the card, I was told that it was impossible and sent by mail new map, but without a contract for a new card. Since March 2017, I have been actively using the card and paying the amounts on invoices. Always two different amounts- 4872 rubles According to demand Loan (it was calculated for 11 months in equal installments) and the amount, cat. exposed the bank on the card. In December 2017 I in full repaid the demand ahead of schedule. Credit. Further, SMS began to arrive on my phone with the fact that the limit on my card is 47 thousand. Immediately came SMS for another amount of 4946 rubles. Then constantly different amounts, but according to the card balance, account statement, the amount of 47 thousand was not even there. They answered my questions in the call center that after repaying the loan, the amount of the limit on the card increased by the amount of the loan, but even in the account statement this is not reflected in any way. Then they assured me that the amount of the limit increased monthly when the loan was repaid. As a result, paying 47,532.64 rubles will be required. Loan and paying monthly all interest and payments on the card, I owe the bank more than 88 thousand. The branch said that they do not give information on cards, only through the call center. They have a claims department in Saratov. They answered my claim that I owe 88 thousand as a result. But how?
Good evening, Olesya! Write a written request to receive an extract from your credit account, an account of accrued interest, fines and penalties. Deliver the application on purpose against signature on your copy or send it by mail with a return receipt and a description of the attachment. Having received an answer, it will be possible to deal with the amounts of debt. If they refuse to provide, you can write a complaint to the prosecutor's office, the head office, the Central Bank of the Russian Federation.
Cetelem Bank is threatening a mobile group! Is it worth it to believe and how to behave? A debt was formed, the last payment was in August! Need legal advice.
Hello. You have the right to simply not communicate with the visiting group. You can not let them into the apartment and do not open the door for them. And just send. If they break, call the police.
Hello. No one has the right to send any traveling groups unless there is a court decision to enforce the collection of the amount of the debt. If someone comes to you, feel free to call the police. Now it makes no sense to pay, you should invite the bank to go to court. Where to ask to reduce penalties, fines, penalties on the basis of Art. 333 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation All the best and successful resolution of problems to you.
We want to take a loan from a network bank for land plot and construction, does the bank have the right to take a deposit of 10% in cash from us?
Dear guest! When granting a loan, no bank takes any collateral. This is another divorce. Find out about this bank on the website Central Bank Russia. Perhaps this bank is not listed in the register. Good luck and be careful!
Took out a loan to buy household appliances in this bank. There is information that this bank is a subsidiary of Sberbank.
A44-1939/2014
FOURTEENTH ARBITRATION
COURT OF APPEAL
st. Batyushkova, 12, Vologda, 160001
http://site
P O S T A N O V L E N I E
The operative part of the resolution was announced on December 25, 2014 .
The resolution was issued in full on January 12, 2015.
Fourteenth Arbitration Court of Appeal consisting of the presiding Murakhina H.The., judges Osokina H.N. and Pestereva O.Yu.
when maintaining the protocol by the secretary of the court session Mazaletskaya O.O.,
examined in open court appeal limited liability company "Cetelem Bank" on the decision of the Arbitration Court of the Novgorod Region dated October 09, 2014 in case No. A44-1939 / 2014 (judge Larina I.G.),
u s t a n o v i l:
Limited Liability Company "Cetelem Bank" (TIN 6452010742, OGRN 1027739664260; location: 125040, Moscow, Pravdy Street, 26; hereinafter - the bank, LLC "Cetelem Bank") applied to the Arbitration Court of the Novgorod Region with an application to the Administration of the Federal services for supervision in the field of consumer rights protection and human well-being in the Novgorod region (TIN 5321101433, OGRN 1055300903833; location: 173015, Veliky Novgorod, Germana street, house 14; hereinafter referred to as management) on declaring illegal and canceling the order to eliminate the identified violations from 03/19/2014 No. 49/ZPP.
By the decision of the Arbitration Court of the Novgorod Region dated October 09, 2014 in case No. A44-1939/2014, the claims were denied.
The bank did not agree with the judicial act and filed an appeal, in which it asks to cancel the court decision. In support of the complaint, he points out that the order of March 19, 2014 No. 49 / ZPP is illegal, since standard forms agreements on the provision of a targeted consumer loan for the purchase of a motor vehicle, agreements on the provision of a loan for urgent needs, as well as the General Conditions for the Issuance and Servicing of Credit Products by Cetelem Bank LLC, in force at the time of its issuance, have become invalid and are not applied by the bank when concluding agreements in connection with the entry into force on July 1, 2014 of the Federal Law of December 21, 2013 No. 353-FZ “On consumer credit(loan)" (hereinafter - Law No. 353-FZ, Law on Consumer Credit).
The Office did not respond to the appeal.
The persons participating in the case were duly notified of the time and place of the consideration of the appeal, no representatives were sent to the court, in connection with this the case was considered in their absence in accordance with Articles 123, 156, 266 of the Arbitration procedural code Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as APC RF).
Having examined the evidence in the case, having checked the legality and validity of the court's decision, having examined the arguments of the complaint, the court of appeal finds no grounds for satisfying it.
As follows from the materials of the case, on the basis of Order No. 49 dated January 29, 2014, the department conducted a scheduled inspection of the activities of the Novgorod Representative Office of Cetelem Bank LLC in order to ensure consumer protection and compliance with mandatory requirements for goods (works, services), as a result of which an act was drawn up inspection dated 03/19/2014 No. 49, which reflects that Cetelem Bank LLC violated the requirements of the Law of the Russian Federation dated 02/07/1992 No. 2300-1 "On Protection of Consumer Rights" (hereinafter - Law No. consumers), expressed in the inclusion in the standard forms of agreements on the provision of a targeted consumer loan for the purchase of a motor vehicle, on the provision of a loan for urgent needs, in the General Conditions for Issuing and Servicing Credit Products of Cetelem Bank LLC, as well as in agreements with specific consumers of bank services , conditions that infringe on the rights of consumers, expressed in providing the bank with the possibility of direct debiting funds from customer accounts individual.
In connection with the revealed violations, on March 19, 2014, the bank was issued order No. 49/ZPP to eliminate the identified violations by April 19, 2014, by excluding from the specified standard forms of contracts and General Conditions issuance and maintenance of credit products of Cetelem Bank LLC, those conditions that infringe on the rights of consumers in comparison with the rules established by laws or other legal acts of the Russian Federation.
In addition, on March 19, 2014, a protocol was drawn up against the bank on administrative offense, 04/18/2014, Resolution No. 449 was issued, by which the bank was held liable under Part 2 of Article 14.8 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, in the form of a fine of 10,000 rubles.
Disagreeing with the order, the bank challenged it in court.
According to part 4 of article 200 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, when considering cases on contesting non-normative legal acts, decisions and actions (inaction) government agencies, organs local government, other bodies, officials, the arbitration court in a court session checks the disputed act or its individual provisions, disputed decisions and actions (inaction) and establishes their compliance with the law or other regulatory legal act, establishes the authority of the body or person that adopted the disputed act , decision or committed the disputed actions (inaction), and also establishes whether the contested act, decision and actions (inaction) violate the rights and legitimate interests of the applicant in the field of entrepreneurial and other economic activity.
In accordance with Article 40 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law, state control and supervision over compliance with laws and other regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation regulating relations in the field of consumer rights protection is carried out by the authorized federal executive body for control (supervision) in the field of consumer rights protection ( its territorial bodies), as well as other federal authorities executive authorities (their territorial bodies) exercising the functions of control and supervision in the field of consumer protection and safety of goods (works, services), in the manner determined by the Government of the Russian Federation.
Regulations on the Federal Service for Supervision of Consumer Rights Protection and Human Welfare, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 322 dated June 30, 2004, functions related to the implementation of supervision and control over compliance with the mandatory requirements of the legislation of the Russian Federation, including in the field of protection of rights consumers (clause 5 of the Regulations) are assigned to Federal Service on supervision in the field of consumer protection and human well-being.
Paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Article 17 of the Federal Law of December 26, 2008 No. 294-FZ “On the Protection of the Rights of Legal Entities and individual entrepreneurs in the implementation state control(supervision) and municipal control" (hereinafter - Law No. 294-FZ) provides for the obligation of officials of the state control (supervision) body, the municipal control body that conducted the inspection, within the powers provided for by the legislation of the Russian Federation, to issue an order to take measures to prevent causing harm to life, human health, harm to animals, plants, environment, state security, property of individuals and legal entities, state or municipal property, prevention of emergencies of a natural and man-made nature, as well as other measures provided for by federal laws.
Consequently, the challenged order was issued by the department within the limits of its powers.
According to Article 9 of the Federal Law of January 26, 1996 No. 15-FZ “On the Enactment of Part Two of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation”, paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law, relations with the participation of consumers are regulated Civil Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights, other federal laws and other regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation adopted in accordance with them.
By virtue of paragraph 1 of Article 16 of the Consumer Rights Protection Law, the terms of the contract that infringe on the rights of the consumer in comparison with the rules established by laws or other legal acts of the Russian Federation in the field of consumer protection are recognized as invalid.
In paragraph 4 of Article 421 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the terms of the contract are determined at the discretion of the parties, except when the content of the relevant condition is prescribed by law or other legal acts (Article 422).
According to paragraph 1 of Article 422 of this Code, the contract must comply with the rules binding on the parties, established by law and other legal acts (imperative norms) in force at the time of its conclusion.
In accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 845 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, under a bank account agreement, the bank undertakes to accept and credit funds received to the account opened by the client (account holder), fulfill the client's instructions to transfer and issue the appropriate amounts from the account and conduct other operations on the account.
The bank may use the funds available on the account, guaranteeing the client's right to freely dispose of these funds (paragraph 2 of Article 845 of this Code).
By virtue of paragraph 3 of Article 845 of the said Code, the bank is not entitled to determine and control the directions of use of the client's funds and establish other restrictions not provided for by law or the bank account agreement, restrictions on its right to dispose of the funds at its own discretion.
In accordance with Article 854 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, funds are debited from the account by the bank on the basis of the client's order.
According to Article 858 of the said Code, restriction of the client's rights to dispose of the funds on the account is not allowed, except for the seizure of the funds on the account or the suspension of operations on the account in cases provided for by law.
In accordance with clause 3.1 of Regulations of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation No. 54-P dated August 31, 1998 “On the procedure for providing (placement) by credit institutions of funds and their return (repayment)” (hereinafter - Regulation No. 54-P), the repayment (return) of funds placed by the bank funds and payment of interest on them is made by transferring funds from the accounts of borrower clients - individuals on the basis of their written instructions, transferring funds of borrower clients - individuals through communication agencies or other credit organizations, depositing cash by the latter into the cash desk of the creditor bank on the basis of a cash receipt order, as well as deductions from the amounts due for wages to borrower clients who are employees of the creditor bank (at their request or on the basis of an agreement).
Thus, the return of funds placed by the bank and the payment of interest on them are made at the active will of the borrower, whether payment order in the case of non-cash settlements, or a written order, transfer, cash deposit to the bank's cash desk - in other cases. Thus, Regulation No. 54-P also does not provide for the possibility of direct debiting by the bank of funds from the client's account.
The Board of Appeal rejects the bank's argument that the current legislation, in particular the Federal Law of June 27, 2011 No. 161-FZ "On National payment system” (hereinafter - Law No. 161-FZ) and the Regulation of the Bank of Russia “On the rules for transferring funds” dated June 19, 2012 No. 383-P, provides for the possibility of obtaining a pre-given acceptance of the payer, since in this case of a consumer loan for the purchase of a motor vehicle, on granting a loan for urgent needs, the General Conditions for Issuing and Servicing Credit Products of Cetelem Bank LLC, the client’s consent to debit funds from the account without additional acceptance does not fall under the signs of “a prior acceptance”.
In addition, paragraph 2 of Article 854 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation provides that, without a client’s order, debiting funds on an account is allowed by a court decision, as well as in cases where statutory or stipulated by the agreement between the bank and the client.
According to clause 2.9.1 of the Regulation of the Bank of Russia "On the rules for the transfer of funds" dated 19.06.2012 No. 383-P, the payer's acceptance given in advance can be given in an agreement between the payer's bank and the payer and (or) in the form of a separate message or document, in including an application for a pre-given acceptance, drawn up by the payer in in electronic format or on paper, indicating the amount of acceptance or the procedure for determining it, information about the recipient of funds who has the right to present orders to bank account payer, on the payer's obligation and the main contract, including in the cases provided for federal law, indicating the possibility (impossibility) of partial execution of the order, as well as other information. In advance, this acceptance must be given before the presentation of the order of the recipient of funds. An acceptance in advance may be given in respect of one or more bank accounts payer, one or more recipients of funds, one or more instructions of the recipient of funds.
It follows from the foregoing that these terms and conditions of the contracts do not fall under the signs of “preliminary acceptance”, since they do not contain the amount of acceptance or the procedure for determining it, information about the recipient of funds who has the right to present instructions to the payer’s bank account, about the payer’s obligation and the main contract, in including in cases stipulated by federal law, indicating the possibility (impossibility) of partial execution of the order, as well as information about the payer's bank accounts in respect of which the acceptance was given in advance.
In accordance with Article 310 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, a unilateral refusal to fulfill an obligation and a unilateral change in its conditions are not allowed, except as otherwise provided by law.
According to civil law (Chapter 42 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), the borrower has an obligation to repay the loan ahead of schedule at the request of the lender only in certain cases, which include the following:
in case of violation by the borrower of the period established for the return of the next loan amount, if the loan agreement provides for the return of the loan in installments (paragraph 2 of Article 811 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation);
if the borrower fails to fulfill the obligations stipulated by the loan agreement to ensure the return of the loan amount, if the security is lost or its conditions worsen due to circumstances for which the lender is not responsible (Article 813 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation);
in the event that the borrower fails to comply with the terms of the loan agreement on the intended use of the loan amount, in case of violation of the obligations to ensure that the lender can exercise control over the intended use of the loan amount (Article 814 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).
In all other cases, not stipulated by the requirements of the law, the lender is not entitled to demand early repayment of the loan. The specified condition of the contract infringes on the rights of consumers in connection with the expansion by the bank of the cases of early repayment of the loan listed in the law.
Thus, the inclusion in the standard forms of agreements on the provision of a targeted consumer loan for the purchase of a motor vehicle, on the provision of a loan for urgent needs, in the General Conditions for the Issuance and Servicing of Credit Products of Cetelem Bank LLC, conditions on the possibility of direct debiting by the bank of funds from the client's accounts - an individual is rightfully recognized by the defendant as violating consumer rights.
The Bank did not provide evidence of non-compliance of the disputed order with the requirements of the law and violation of these non-normative legal act his rights and interests in the field of entrepreneurial activity.
Consequently, there are no grounds for invalidating the challenged order.
In addition, the legality of the prescription is also confirmed by the decision of the Arbitration Court of the city of Moscow dated June 16, 2014 in case A40-56702 / 2014, which has entered into force, which confirms the legality of bringing the bank to administrative responsibility for committing the above violations, as well as conducting an audit in respect of it .
In the appeal, the applicant points out that Order No. 49/ZPP dated March 19, 2014 is illegal, since the standard forms of the above disputed agreements, as well as the General Conditions for Issuing and Servicing Credit Products of Cetelem Bank LLC, in force at the time of its issuance, have become invalid and are not applied by the bank when concluding contracts in connection with the entry into force on 01.07.2014 of the Consumer Credit Law.
This argument is subject to rejection, since evidence of non-use of the existing disputed standard contracts and the General Conditions for Issuing and Servicing Credit Products of Cetelem Bank LLC were not presented in the case file. In addition, this circumstance could not affect the legality of the challenged order, since at the time of its issuance the violations indicated in it took place, which is confirmed by the case materials, in this regard, the order of 19.03.2014 No. 49 / ZPP is legal.
Under the above circumstances, the court of appeal found that the decision of the arbitration court of the first instance was issued with a full clarification of the circumstances of the case, violations of the norms of substantive and procedural law has not been established, there are no grounds for satisfaction of the appeal and the cancellation of the contested judicial act.
Guided by articles 269, 271 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the Fourteenth Arbitration Court of Appeal
p o s t a n o v i l:
The decision of the Arbitration Court of the Novgorod Region dated October 09, 2014 in case No. А44-1939/2014 is left unchanged, the appeal of the limited liability company "Cetelem Bank" is not satisfied.
The decision may be appealed to the Arbitration Court of the North-Western District within a period not exceeding two months from the date of its adoption.
presiding | N.V. Murakhina |
N.N. Osokina |
