One of the leaders in the POS lending market, OTP Bank, showed threefold growth in e-commerce in 2017 compared to 2016. In 2018, he expects 50% growth in this segment. The bank also intends to test installment cards based on LoP technology.
Among the main market trends, OTP Bank specialists name the growing desire of retailers to sell their products in installments. Up to 80% of market participants are already doing this. Even grocery chains are starting to offer groceries on credit. This is happening against the backdrop of the introduction of new technological solutions (simplified questionnaire, paperless technologies, etc.).
The least risky segments in POS lending are still furniture and fur products, the deputy chairman shared with reporters on May 31, 2018 at a press breakfast OLP Board Bank Alexander Vasiliev. “It’s clear that furniture and furs are higher quality loans,” he said. “If in the mobile equipment market the default rate is up to 15%, then in furs and furniture the default rate is only 0.2-0.3%.” Vasiliev also noted that due to the complexity of the secondary resale of these goods, such loans are not used for fraudulent schemes.
Despite good performance issuances in traditional POS lending in 2017, OTP Bank intends to develop new product lines. In particular, we are talking about the pilot of installment cards. The bank views this segment primarily as an option to attract new clients. Unlike Belarus, where this technology came to us (where it, in turn, was borrowed from Turkey, where the installmet market reaches 25%), our stores are not yet ready to pay commissions to banks. In general, the attractiveness of the product for banks is explained by the possibility of transferring expenses using a credit card. card into an annuity payment, which reduces risks. “Customers eagerly use this service and the market here is literally forced to follow them,” says Alexander Vasiliev.”
It is also becoming increasingly difficult for banks to compete in large shopping centers. “When you compete with 5–7 banks on one site, this does not provide too many opportunities for development,” notes the deputy chairman. This is pushing banks to develop online lending and digital sales platforms. Another factor is the growth of online commerce, caused by a decrease in the margins of small retail outlets. “More and more small stores are cutting costs on renting premises and going online,” Vasiliev notes. Until recently, for OTP Bank, Internet lending accounted for a very small share of volumes, but last year it showed a three-fold increase and is now being identified by the bank as a separate segment due to its high potential and active development. The main way of interaction with online stores is the brokerage platform (ed. up to 60–65% of credit sales of the top 100).
Another trend in the POS lending market is the growth in sales of commission products. IN case of OTP The bank is a product line of partners in the areas medical services and goods for life and health, household services and advisory services in the field of finance and law.
At the end of October, Pochta Bank overtook OTP Bank in issuing loans for the purchase of goods in retail networks(POS loans) and may soon take second place in this market. The rapid growth in issuances is ensured by the rate on lending for the purchase of mobile equipment - this segment accounts for about 50% of all POS loans of the bank. Competitors do not share this approach, pointing to high risks in this segment due to the liquidity of smartphones purchased on credit, and prefer to cede market share rather than increase risks.
According to the analytical agency Frank RG, Pochta Bank, one of the top three leaders in the POS lending market, has overtaken OTP Bank, which ranks second in this segment, in terms of issuances. Over the month, Post Bank issued POS loans for 4.52 billion rubles, OTP Bank - for 4.32 billion rubles, market leader HKF Bank - for 7.11 billion rubles. As a result, the loan portfolio indicators of Pochta Bank and OTP Bank in this segment were almost equal - 32.1 billion rubles. and 32.9 billion rubles, respectively, while a month earlier the gap was 1.7 billion rubles.
215 billion rubles
Thus, before the end of the year, changes may occur in the top three, and the second place, held by OTP Bank since 2010, may be taken by Pochta Bank, which entered this market much later than other players (a joint project of VTB and Russian Post). On this moment The market leader HKF Bank accounts for 22.2% of the total volume of loans in this segment, OTP Bank - 13.3%, and Pochta Bank - 12.9%. The portfolio of POS loans for the system as a whole amounted, according to Frank RG, as of November 1, to 215 billion rubles.
The fastest growth in the POS lending segment is provided by Pochta Bank, in particular, loans for mobile equipment. “We are strengthening our position in the mobile equipment lending segment by expanding cooperation with leading cellular communication stores,” says Andrey Pavlov, director of partnership network development at Pochta Bank. “Currently, the bank is successfully cooperating with federal companies such as Svyaznoy ( including Euroset stores), Beeline, MTS, Tele2. At the local level, relationships with major regional partners have been effectively built.” According to him, loans for mobile equipment make up about 50% of the bank’s total POS loans.
Such a high share of loans for mobile equipment is atypical for market leaders, since such loans are associated with increased risk. “Our share of mobile equipment accounts for no more than 30% of the POS portfolio,” says Alexander Antonenko, deputy chairman of the board of HCF Bank. “This share depends on the bank’s policy, since loans for the purchase of phones are associated with increased risks due to the liquidity of the goods.” Unlike refrigerators, fur coats and other segments, a new smartphone can be sold virtually in one day through online bulletin boards, which attracts scammers, bankers note. According to the deputy chairman of the board of OTP Bank, Alexander Vasiliev, the bank does not have a goal to maintain a certain market share, since it focuses on the profitability of issues. “We adhere to conservative policies. In the POS business, you can issue a lot and earn little or even lose,” notes Mr. Vasiliev. According to him, at OTP Bank mobile equipment accounts for about 15% of issues. “The main volume of loans for mobile equipment is concentrated in communication shops and large electronics stores,” he explains. “They have fairly high requirements for credit rate and the commission that the bank must pay trade organization for attracting clients, accordingly, part of the loans may simply be unprofitable.” Mobile phones are a segment associated with high risks, and when this is accompanied by a still low rate and a high commission, then there are quite a few profitable loans left, he concludes.
However, Pochta Bank does not intend to abandon its approach. Our goal is to take second place in the portfolio ranking commodity loans: in 2019, Pochta Bank plans to increase its market share to 15%, Mr. Pavlov said.
Ksenia Dementieva, Svetlana Samuseva
MOSCOW, December 26 - PRIME, Ekaterina Zhirova. The Hungarian financial group OTP Group has been represented in Russia since the end of 2006 through OTP Bank. During this time, the bank entered the top 55 largest in Russia and took second place in the Russian POS lending market. About how private to a foreign bank works in Russia, about the attitude parent bank to the development of OTP Bank, plans to expand the business, risks and prospects for the development of POS lending and online trading, Deputy Chairman of the Board of the Bank Alexander Vasiliev spoke in an interview with the Prime agency.
- How is the POS lending market developing in the Russian Federation? How is it different from foreign markets?
Now is a good time for POS lending. Since 2015, the situation in terms of risks has gradually improved, and now many banks are willing to lend, and go to different segments that were atypical in 2012 and 2013 - for example, lending for furs and furniture. The general trend is that the average loan amount is increasing and rates are decreasing.
As for the profitability of POS lending for banks, it Lately is also decreasing. This is due to the fact that retailers are finding it increasingly difficult to compete with each other, and they are forced to use POS lending as a tool to increase profitability. At the same time, it is important for them that the rate is as low as possible or the commission from the bank for attracting a client is as high as possible.
- What share of the POS lending market in the Russian Federation does OTP Bank have? How would the bank like to increase this share?
We occupy second place, in terms of issuances this is about 14% of the market. At the same time, we are a conservative bank and try to issue POS loans in those places and to those clients where it is clear from the point of view of risk and financial model. We do not go into risky segments. Increasing our share and becoming first in the market by any means is not an end in itself and not an element of our strategy.
The POS business has its own specifics: if you compare it, say, with a mortgage, then in mortgage lending the main component of risk is social default, which can occur at any time during the life of the loan, and in POS lending it is fraud, that is, fraud .
If in the first few months the client makes payments regularly, then with a very high probability he will continue to pay in a disciplined manner and will repay the entire loan amount on time.
If you are a leading bank, then this allows you to gain experience and build good scoring models and anti-fraud systems, as well as have credibility with trade organizations and a generally good flow of clients. And only in this case does this line of business become profitable. Being the sixth or seventh bank means always being on the sidelines in every trading organization. The first choice banks collect good results, quality clients, the second and third choice banks receive refusals after them.
What changes have occurred in the POS market in the past year (how have the dynamics, issue volumes and demand, and other available statistics changed)? What expectations do you expect from the development of this market and the growth/decrease in OTP Bank’s income in 2018?
We have planned for growth and expect the market to grow too.
- How did the borrower’s portrait change in 2017? Is there a breakdown by age, gender, and income of the borrower?
If we take each product category separately, then in the majority of cases, loans, for example, for refrigerators, are taken by approximately the same people who took them before. It is clear that Cell phones Younger and less wealthy people buy on credit, but the share of loans for furs and furniture is growing, where the bulk of clients are wealthier and older borrowers. Most likely, those people who take out loans for mobile phones will not take out loans for fur coats and vice versa. Overall, our POS clients are predominantly female, with an average age of 41 years.
What do customers most often take out on credit at retail outlets? What is the average purchase amount? How has it changed in 2017?
It depends on the bank's strategy. Once upon a time, our main segments were home appliances and mobile phones, and we had virtually no presence in other product categories. Now the share of these product categories in the total volume of issuances is declining. We began to expand our presence and issue loans in very different segments, which were previously considered non-classical. The average purchase amount since the beginning of the year is about 25 thousand rubles, and it is growing. The lowest average bill in 2017 was among residents of the Mari El Republic and the Ulyanovsk region (17.97 thousand rubles and 22.42 thousand rubles, respectively). The highest average bill is 39.33 thousand rubles and 39.38 thousand rubles in Kabardino-Balkaria and the Kamchatka region.
- Have the risks in POS lending in Russia increased over last years, or, on the contrary, decreased?
Risks are reduced. There was a local peak in 2014 and the first half of 2015, then they gradually decreased.
Does the bank increase the formation of reserves for these loans? Are there any gaps in legislation in this market? What suggestions do you have to improve it?
If there were no changes in regulatory rules, rules for the formation of reserves, they would have decreased. From the point of view of the formation of reserves, we feel comfortable, despite the fact that changes are taking place in the methodology for their calculation. This is largely due to the fact that we take a conservative approach to lending and do not work in high-risk segments, where reserves would have to be formed in much larger volume. Here, perhaps, the only inconvenience is that various innovations occur quite often.
How does it generally work for a private foreign bank in Russia? What are the main advantages and disadvantages of Russian banking regulation?
Okay, comfortable. If we compare the Russian market with other markets where OTP Group is present, the market, firstly, is very large, and secondly, it is developing very quickly. Technology, innovation - this is changing an order of magnitude faster here than in other countries. When we launch new projects, we try to consult with other banks in the group, and, as a rule, their solutions are interesting, but not always applicable to our market. In fact, Russia is one of the most interesting markets, because here you can try and experiment a lot. At the same time, successful ideas can be scaled.
Does the bank have plans to expand its business in the Russian Federation? Tell us more about this, please. What are they?
We are always ready for dialogue and consider various proposals, but we do not have the task of simply buying something - our acquisition must be complementary to the current business and give a synergistic effect. We always have options that we consider and analyze.
Are you satisfied? parent bank business development in Russia? What results do you expect from the development of your business by the end of 2017 ( financial indicators)?
We probably have the largest increase in profit among the group’s banks - in accordance with IFRS, the group’s profit in Russia (excluding the online project Touch Bank) based on the results of 9 months of 2017 amounted to 4.5 billion rubles, which is 18% more than last year. At the end of the year, OTP Bank's financial performance will be better than in the past. Overall, 2017 is one of the most successful years for our banking business in Russia.
What are your assessments and forecasts regarding the online trading market in Russia? How interested are banks in this segment?
Issuing loans for goods in online stores is one of the most promising directions, but it is still poorly developed. Although the potential is simply huge. If, for example, in a large chain store selling equipment, the share of sales on credit is about 30%, then in online stores this is, as a rule, no more than 2%. That is, there is room to grow and develop. The only thing is that the online lending market is more sensitive to the rate. If a person analyzes prices on the Internet, comparing them with each other, most likely, he will be thoughtful when choosing a loan offer. In ordinary retail stores this is wrong. In terms of rates and quality of borrowers, rates are lower, quality of borrowers is higher. But there is another problem - fraud on the Internet is easier. There is no need to run around shopping and wait for your loan to be approved.
The volume of the online trading market in Russia at the end of 2016 amounted to 920 billion rubles, an increase of 21% year on year. In the first half of 2017, growth Russian market Internet commerce accounted for 22%. By the end of the year it will grow by 25% and reach 1.2 trillion rubles. The share of online commerce from all digital economy Russia is 36%. At the same time, more than 90% of buyers place orders in Russian online stores.
What is the dynamics of lending through credit cards? Are they popular among clients, or do clients prefer POS lending?
We specialize mainly in POS lending, and if our clients are asked whether they need a card and what kind, then in most cases everyone will answer that there is no such need. For customers who are accustomed to POS loans, it is important that the product is simple and understandable. A man decided to buy a refrigerator for 40 thousand rubles. He was given a loan for exactly the same amount - 40 thousand rubles. They issued a schedule indicating that on such and such a date of each month such and such an amount must be paid - everything is very clear.
The card product itself is more complex - billing period, payment period, Grace period- this mechanic is not obvious to everyone. For such clients we have released special card- something between a POS loan and a credit card.
- That is, the bank’s POS lending portfolio is higher than its credit card portfolio?
They are approximately equal in size. If we talk about portfolios, then the POS loan has a short term. As the check grows, it increases slightly, but usually it is 12 months. That is, the portfolio is repaid and amortized very quickly, plus early repayment, which further increases the depreciation of the portfolio.
According to the maps, the situation is different, there the natural depreciation itself is very small, plus good clients We are also increasing the limits, thereby motivating them to use the cards. Thus, it is naturally easier to maintain a card portfolio on an existing basis than a POS loan portfolio.
What is the average rate now in the POS lending market and at the bank? Do you expect it to decrease following the key rate?
About 25%. The key rate has very little effect on the POS lending rate. The POS loan rate is formed from the cost of funding, which is influenced by the key rate, but not directly. From the cost of risk for the borrower, which the key rate does not affect at all. And from the cost of the transaction for issuing loans. Therefore the change key rate up-down very, very indirectly affects the POS lending rate. Let's say that the risks for the borrower have a much stronger impact. According to my expectations, the average rate in the POS lending market will decrease in 2018.
According to the data, as of November 1, OTP Bank occupied 51st place in banking system Russian Federation with assets of 145.5 billion rubles, own funds amounted to 29.5 billion rubles, the funds of the population - 55 billion rubles.
The president
Ilya Petrovich Chizhevsky was born in Leningrad (St. Petersburg) in 1978.
In 2000 he received a diploma from the St. Petersburg Institute of Precision Mechanics and Optics (Technical University). While studying at the University he was an active member international association students studying economics and management (AIESEC). He began his career in St. Petersburg in the FMCG sector - Kraft Foods.
In 2003, he moved to work in the retail division of Citibank CJSC in Moscow, where he developed alternative sales channels and credit products. In 2006, he moved to GE Capital - working in Russia and abroad, he went from head of the Moscow region to Director of Sales and Distribution in Russia, responsible for the development of distribution and sales channels, alternative funding and attracting customers via the Internet. In October 2012, he moved to Rusfinance Bank LLC (Societe Generale) to the position of Deputy President of the bank, where he was responsible for sales, products and marketing in the bank.
In June 2013, he joined the OTP Bank team, where from August 2013 he held the position of Director of the Network Division. On June 9, 2014, he was appointed Deputy Chairman of the Board of OTP Bank. Ilya Chizhevsky's area of responsibility included the business of classical branch network And alternative channels sales In addition, he was responsible for working with the VIP segment, micro and small businesses, development corporate business Bank, channels for remote attraction and servicing of Bank clients.
Kapustin Sergey Nikolaevich
short biography
Sergei Nikolaevich Kapustin
Deputy Chairman of the Management Board, Member of the Management Board
Sergei Nikolaevich Kapustin was born in Moscow in 1979.
In 2001 he graduated from the Faculty of Mechanics and Mathematics of Moscow State University with a degree in Applied Mathematics. Has a candidate's degree economic sciences.
IN banking sector more than 15 years. He began his banking career in 2001 at Bank Vozrozhdenie, where he worked his way up from leading specialist to Deputy Head of Department retail operations answering questions retail business Banking and risk management.
In 2008, he moved to OTP Bank, where he took the position of Director of the Risk Assessment and Methodology Directorate. Supervised issues related to credit risks on the Bank's retail portfolio, lending methodology, operational and market risks.
From 2011 to 2013 he worked in the field of microfinance.
Since 2013, he has been Deputy Chairman of the Board, Director of the Risk Management Division at OTP Bank.
Oreshkina Yulia Sergeevna
short biography
Yulia Sergeevna Oreshkina
Director of the Legal Support Directorate, Member of the Board
Yulia Sergeevna Oreshkina was born in Moscow in 1973.
In 1997 she graduated from the Moscow State Law Academy with a degree in jurisprudence.
She began her career in the prosecutor's office, then moved to work in the Legal Department of the Moscow Main Territorial Administration Central Bank Russian Federation. Yulia Sergeevna Oreshkina also worked in various years in the legal services of a number of large Russian banks, in particular such as CB Petrocommerce, OJSC Impexbank and others.
Yulia Sergeevna Oreshkina has been working at OTP Bank (until 2008 – Investsberbank) since 2007, where she heads the directorate legal support.
Vasiliev Alexander Vasilievich
Deputy Chairman of the Management Board, Member of the Management Board
short biography
Alexander Vasilievich Vasiliev
Deputy Chairman of the Management Board, Member of the Management Board
Alexander Vasilievich Vasiliev was born in Akhtubinsk in 1978.
Graduated from Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov.
Works in the banking industry for more than 10 years.
From 2004 to 2010, he served as deputy head of the retail operations department at Bank Vozrozhdenie OJSC, where he worked on development projects credit products For individuals(consumer loans, car loans, mortgage credit lending), as well as on the implementation of process automation systems retail lending, such as Microsoft Dynamics CRM, Experian Strategy Manager.
In 2010, Mr. Vasiliev headed the department credit risks FG "BCS", where he participated in the launch of the line of lending to individuals and in the creation of unified processes for assessing and managing credit risks. Since June 2011, he joined the OTP Bank team as Director of the Product and Technology Development Directorate. Since December 2013, he served as Director of the Consumer Lending Division.
Dremach Kirill Andreevich
Deputy Chairman of the Management Board, Member of the Management Board
short biography
Kirill Andreevich Dremach
Deputy Chairman of the Management Board, Member of the Management Board
Kirill Andreevich Dremach was born in Moscow in 1974.
In 1996 he graduated from the Moscow Institute of Economics and Statistics with a degree in Applied Mathematics.
More than 20 years in the banking industry. He began his banking career in 1996 at ZAO Citibank, working his way up from a specialist to the Head of the Information Technology Department, and was responsible for the development of the information technology base, automation of business processes and financial management in the field of IT.
In 2009, he joined Barclays Bank LLC as a Department Director. information technologies, in 2010 he was included in the Board of Directors of the bank.
From 2012 to 2016, he worked at JSC Citibank as the Head of Operational Banking Technologies in Central and Eastern Europe, was responsible for the creation, maintenance and development of the bank’s high-tech information environment, supervised the development and application information systems and new banking products.
In November 2016, he joined the team of OTP Bank JSC as Director of the Operations Management Division. Since November 3, 2017, he has been Deputy Chairman of the Management Board, member of the Management Board of OTP Bank JSC.
Belomytsev Igor Yurievich
Deputy Chairman of the Management Board, Member of the Management Board
short biography
Igor Yurievich Belomytsev
Deputy Chairman of the Management Board, Member of the Management Board
Igor Yuryevich Belomytsev was born in Gorky ( Nizhny Novgorod) in 1966.
In 1989, he received a diploma as an economist with a specialization in Foreign Economic Relations from the Budapest Karl Marx University of Economic Sciences. In 1993, Igor Yuryevich completed his master's degree at the Stockholm University of Economics.
More than 25 years in the banking industry. He began his banking career in 1990 at the Hungarian Mezobank, which was later merged into a large financial group in Central Europe– Erste Bank Group. Igor Yurievich was appointed Director of the Treasury Operations Division and was responsible for the development of ALM and management of the treasury activities of Erste Bank in Hungary, the development and implementation of business strategies in the field of treasury operations, initiating the development of new investment products and strategies.
In 2001, he moved to Volksbank PJSC (Budapest) and headed the Treasury Division and investment direction in the bank.
In 2007, he joined the OTP Bank (Ukraine) team as Deputy Chairman of the Board, responsible for Treasury operations and asset and liability management, development of subsidiaries. Under the leadership of Igor Yurievich, the following were created and successfully developed: OTP Factoring, OTP Pension Fund, OTP Management Company and OTP Leasing.
In 2016, Igor Yuryevich moved to OTP Bank (Russia), where he took the position of Advisor to the President and was responsible for the development of Corporate Business and Treasury Operations. In February 2017, Igor was appointed Director of the Corporate Business and Treasury Operations Division. Igor successfully manages the development of strategies and new products in the business areas of these divisions.
On November 3, 2017, he was appointed Deputy Chairman of the Management Board, member of the Management Board of OTP Bank JSC.
On January 27, 2015, Gabor Burian-Kozma joined the team of the Finance Division of OTP Bank JSC as a Project Manager. He was involved in the development of plans for the preparation and implementation of the Bank’s financial projects, took part in improving business planning and developing an effective strategic development model OTP groups in Russia.
On December 1, 2015, Gabor was appointed Director of the Finance Division and took over the supervision of the financial block activities of OTP Bank (Russia) and management of departments responsible for the formation and strategic planning financial policy Bank, financial and accounting services, departments responsible for audits.
On June 6, 2018, he was appointed to the position of Deputy Chairman of the Management Board, member of the Management Board of OTP Bank JSC.
Case No. 2-1341/2015
SOLUTION
In the name of the Russian Federation
Dimitrovgrad City Court of the Ulyanovsk Region, composed of presiding judge E.P. Chapaikina,
under secretary Rizen E.A.,
Having considered in open court a civil case based on the claim of Annenkova R.M. to society with limited liability"Beauty Salon" on the collection of funds, interest under the contract, fine, compensation for moral damage, open joint stock company"OTP Bank" on recognition loan agreement invalid and account closure,
INSTALLED:
Plaintiff Annenkova R.M. filed a claim, clarified during the trial, against the limited liability company "Beauty Salon" for the recovery of funds, interest under the agreement, a fine, compensation for moral damage, and the open joint-stock company "OTP Bank" for the recognition of the loan agreement as invalid and the closure accounts.
In support of her claims, she indicated that * * * over the phone she entered into a purchase and sale agreement * with Beauty Salon LLC. To invite her to the procedure for demonstrating cosmetics, they called her repeatedly, in an intrusive form they asked her to come to the presentation of Desheli cosmetics, emphasizing that this procedure is free.
* * * she came for a free procedure without the intention of buying any products. During the procedure, the cosmetologist assured her that after a month of caring for Desheli cosmetics at home, she would have a noticeable effect; she was also assured of the natural composition of the cosmetics and its amazing properties.
After carrying out the procedures under psychological influence, she was forced to enter into a purchase and sale agreement in installments for 3 years. She didn't want to sign the contract, but for some reason she did. Being in a state incomprehensible to her under the influence of a complex of factors - persuasion, smells, a cosmetic procedure, she went to the office, where other employees quickly issued a loan on her behalf at OJSC OTP Bank. At the same time, there was no representative of the Bank. The loan agreement received indicates Vasiliev Alexander Vasilievich as an authorized person of the Bank, but the agreement with her was concluded by an employee of the “Beauty Salon”, a woman, and the loan agreement bears Vasiliev’s facsimile signature and the Bank’s facsimile seal. She was not explained the terms of the loan, the loan amount, or interest. When concluding a loan agreement, an employee of Beauty Salon LLC, at her own discretion, rounded up the amount of her income.
Product or cosmetic set priced * rub. was not passed on to her. The product specifications were not provided to her, and she did not sign the Goods Acceptance and Transfer Certificate. The terms of the contract for the purchase and sale of goods provide for the purchase of goods in installments, without using credit funds, but an employee of Beauty Salon LLC, misleading her, forced her to enter into a loan agreement under the influence of deception.
She did not use the funds borrowed on credit, nor did she use goods that were not purchased on credit funds. In accordance with Art. considers the transaction to conclude a loan agreement invalid.
Initial loan repayment amount * * * g., amount * rub. She was constantly called from the Bank, she was forced to pay * rub.
In * * she repeatedly contacted the defendant and asked that the contract be declared invalid * * *. The purchase and sale agreement was terminated and a Certificate of Termination of the Contract was drawn up. The Act states that the amount of * rub. transferred to an account opened in her name at the Bank until * * *
Thus, Beauty Salon LLC obliged to return the money to the Bank.
She wrote an application to terminate the loan agreement and sent it to the Bank, but the Bank refused to terminate the agreement.
She does not agree with the Bank’s refusal, since, according to the terms of the loan agreement, a consumer loan to purchase a specific product that was not provided to her.
She asked to invalidate the loan agreement No. * dated * * *, concluded between her and OJSC OTP Bank, to oblige LLC Beauty Salon to execute the Certificate of Termination dated * * * on the termination of the purchase and sale agreement * dated * * * g., to recover from Beauty Salon LLC * rub., compensation for moral damage in the amount of * rub.
According to the updated claim, he asks to recover * rubles from Beauty Salon LLC. *kopecks, losses in the amount of * rubles, fine for failure to comply with consumer requirements, interest on the loan in the amount of * rubles. for the period from * * * to * * *, compensation for moral damage in the amount of * rubles, invalidate the loan agreement No. * dated * * *, concluded between her and OJSC OTP Bank.
At the court hearing, plaintiff Annenkova R.M. she supported the specified claims, indicating that she gave the court explanations similar to those set out in the claims. She asked that the clarified claims be satisfied.
The representative of the plaintiff, Faizullina D.Kh., acting on the basis of the plaintiff’s statement, at the court hearing the plaintiff clarified the claims of Annenkova R.M. also supported.
Representatives of the defendants LLC “Beauty Salon”, OJSC “OTP Bank”, having been duly notified of the time and place of the consideration of the case, did not appear at the court hearing, did not report the reasons for their failure to appear in court, and did not submit any objections to the claim.
In accordance with the provisions of Part 4 of Article of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the court considers it possible to consider the case in the absence of defendants who have not appeared and who have been notified of the time and place of the consideration of the case.
After listening to the plaintiff and his representative, and examining the case materials, the court comes to the following conclusion.
In accordance with Part 1 of Article of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, an interested person has the right, in the manner established by the legislation on civil proceedings, to apply to the court for the protection of violated or disputed rights, freedoms or legitimate interests.
As established at the court hearing, * * * years between Annenkova R.M. and Beauty Salon LLC signed a purchase and sale agreement No. * for the purchase of a cosmetic set worth * rubles. * kop.
At the same time, loan funds were raised to purchase a range of care services - Annenkova R.M. * * * the year a loan agreement No. * was concluded with OJSC OTP Bank.
According to the terms of the loan agreement, the loan cash provided to the plaintiff for a period of * months, at *% per annum for using the loan, amount monthly payment is * rub., the amount of the last payment is * rub.
At the same time, the loan was provided to pay for what R.M. Annenkova purchased. goods in the form of a cosmetic set, the funds must be transferred to the account of the retail outlet, which is Beauty Salon LLC.
Thus, the buyer’s obligations to pay for the goods to Annenkova R.M. were completed.
At the same time, as R.M. Annenkova explained, she did not use the range of paid cosmetic services.
The defendant LLC “Beauty Salon” did not present any evidence to the court to refute these arguments of the plaintiff, whereas, according to Art. Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, each party must prove the circumstances to which it refers as the basis for its claims and objections.
As follows from the case materials, * * * years between Annenkova R.M. and the defendant entered into an agreement to terminate the purchase and sale agreement No. * dated * * *, according to the terms of which, Beauty Salon LLC assumed obligations to transfer, within * * * year, the amount paid under the agreement in the amount of * rubles . * kop. by transferring money to the plaintiff’s current account opened with OJSC OTP Bank.
Thus, since the court found that the parties in established by law order, the previously concluded contract for the purchase and sale of goods in the form of a set of cosmetic services was terminated, therefore, since the goods were not transferred to the buyer, the amount of money contributed by the plaintiff to pay for the goods was subject to return.
At the same time, as established by the court, the executor LLC "Beauty Salon" has an obligation to return to the plaintiff a sum of money in the amount of * rubles. * kop. did not comply.
Information about the transfer by the defendant LLC "Beauty Salon" of any amounts to the plaintiff's account in OJSC "OTP Bank" for the purpose of repayment credit obligations there is no plaintiff before the Bank, as well as no return of funds to the plaintiff in another form.
The defendant Beauty Salon LLC did not present evidence to the court of the fulfillment of the obligation assumed under the act of termination of the contract.
By virtue of paragraph 1 of Art. Civil Code In the Russian Federation, an agreement is considered concluded if an agreement is reached between the parties, in the form required in appropriate cases, on all the 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.
In accordance with Part 1 of Art. of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, a transaction is invalid on the grounds established by this Code, due to its recognition as such by the court (voidable transaction) or regardless of such recognition (void).
According to Part 1 of Art. Civil Code of the Russian Federation, an invalid transaction does not entail legal consequences, except for those related to its invalidity and is invalid from the moment of its completion.
In accordance with paragraph 2 of Art. According to the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, a transaction made under the influence of deception may be declared invalid by the court at the request of the victim. Deliberate silence about circumstances that a person should have reported with the conscientiousness required of him under the terms of the transaction is also considered deception.
In the dispute under consideration, the parties entered into a contractual relationship to provide the plaintiff with credit funds.
The formalization of contractual relations for the issuance of a loan is not limited to the parties drawing up only one document (loan agreement) signed by them, but is confirmed by other documents, from which the will of the borrower will be clear to receive a certain amount from the bank sum of money on agreed terms (by the client submitting an application for the issuance of funds, by paying a fee for the provision of a loan, etc.), and, in turn, by the bank opening a loan account to the client and issuing funds to the latter.
The plaintiff did not dispute the Bank’s opening of a current account in her name and the crediting of funds to it as payment for a cosmetic product.
The borrower began to fulfill the loan agreement dated No. * dated * * * with the conditions set out therein, paying a loan fee in the amount of * rubles.
According to the provisions of Art. Art. , the evidence in the case is obtained in provided by law the procedure for information about the facts on the basis of which the court establishes the presence or absence of circumstances justifying the demands and objections of the parties, as well as other circumstances relevant for the proper consideration and resolution of the case. Each party must prove the circumstances to which it refers as the basis for its claims and objections. Failure to prove the circumstances that the plaintiff refers to in support of his claims is an independent basis for refusal of the claim.
IN in this case There is no evidence in the case materials confirming that the loan agreement of Annenkov R.M. concluded by the plaintiff under the influence of deception and delusion, as well as the fact that when concluding the contract, she did not pursue the goals that should be implied by the parties, and their actions were not aimed at achieving the legal result that should be obtained when concluding this transaction , since the contract was concluded in accordance with the rules current legislation, the terms of the agreement have been fulfilled by the parties.
Thus, the court believes that there are no legal grounds for declaring the loan agreement invalid on the grounds that the plaintiff referred to in support of his claims.
Accordingly, the requirements of Annenkova R.M. are not subject to satisfaction. on the recovery from LLC "Beauty Salon" of the plaintiff's payments to the Bank * rub. and interest for using the loan in the amount of * rub. for the period from * * * to * * *, since in accordance with Part 3 of Art. Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the obligation does not create obligations for persons not participating in it as parties (for third parties).
Beauty Salon LLC is not a party to the loan agreement, and therefore the plaintiff’s obligations under the said agreement cannot influence the obligations of Beauty Salon LLC, and therefore imposing the obligation to pay the loan to the Bank on the defendant cannot be a way to restore the rights of the plaintiff; this part of the claim should be rejected.
In accordance with Art. Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, since the plaintiff, when filing a claim, is exempt from paying state duty, and the specified claims are satisfied, the defendant receives income local budget a state duty in the amount of RUB 2,640 is subject to collection. 72 kopecks
Guided by Art. Art. - , - Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, court
DECIDED:
The claims of Roza Mikhailovna Annenkova will be partially satisfied.
To recover from the limited liability company “Beauty Salon” in favor of Annenkova R.M. cash in the amount of * (*) rub. * kop., compensation for moral damage in the amount of * (*) rub., fine in the amount of * (*) rub. * kop., and in total to collect * (*) rub. * kop.
The rest of the claims of Roza Mikhailovna Annenkova will be refused.
To recover from the limited liability company "Beauty Salon" as local budget revenue state fee in the amount of * (*) rub. * kop.
The decision can be appealed to Ulyanovsk regional court through the Dimitrovgrad City Court within one month from the date of drawing up the decision in final form, 06/01/2015.
Judge E.P. Chapaikina