Russian Standard Bank is a popular retail bank with a huge amount financial products and services for different categories of customers. In combination, the bank is one of the largest issuers credit cards in Russia.
IN financial organization over 100 different tariff plans and credit programs that will satisfy the needs of even the most demanding customers banking services. Russian Standard Bank issues cash loans individuals under low rates and available times.
What are the purposes and terms of loans in RSB?
Russian Standard Bank cannot be called standard in terms of designated purpose loans. There are more than 130 lending programs in the line of a financial institution, half of which have a designated purpose:
- For the purchase of furniture
- To phone
- For household appliances
- For equipment of a certain brand
- For a trip abroad
- For a fur coat, etc.
You can list indefinitely. In general, all these goals relate only to POS loans, which are provided by the bank to pay for goods and services through partner stores. If we talk about cash loans, they are issued for any consumer needs borrower without a designated purpose.
At the same time, most often people spend loans from Russian Standard Bank to individuals on expensive purchases, payment for treatment, repairs in an apartment, etc. Cash loans from RSB are issued in a small amount Therefore, borrowers do not have to rely on large capital investments.
Lending terms for Russian Standard Bank loans to individuals are as diverse as lending conditions. Here you can get a loan absolutely for any period within 48 months. Let's take a closer look at this question in the table:
| Tariff plan | Timing |
|---|---|
| Standard loan | 3 to 12 months |
| Simple mobile phone loan | Fixed term for 6, 8, 10 or 12 months |
| Big buy | 3 to 36 months |
| Better than cash | 10 months |
| Express lending for 12 months | 12 months |
| Credit for loyal customers | Fixed terms to choose from: 12, 24 or 36 months |
| consumer loan | Fixed terms to choose from: 24 or 36 months |
Submit online application for a loan in Russian Standard can be below
POS credits in partner stores
Apart from consumer loans In cash, the bank actively provides targeted and non-targeted loans to pay for goods and services through a network of partners. Among these stores and companies are: Pegas Touristik, DNS, 220 volts, ANEX TOUR, TEZTOUR, Aleph, Askona, Lots of furniture, Nika, Ormatek, Sunrise Tour, Yulmart, Snow Queen, etc.
Here you need to keep in mind that each partner store has its own tariff plan with different interest rates, amounts and terms. This means that the terms of a loan at Russian Standard Bank for individuals will depend solely on the chosen partner store.
At the same time, the credit institution has several tariff plans that are more common than others. For example, under the Standard Credit TP, a borrower can buy any product or service on credit through a partner network of stores. There are also specific target products in the line: for purchase mobile phone and accessories, for furniture, for recreation, for treatment, etc.
In total, there are 139 tariff plans with completely different lending conditions.
Loan conditions at Russian Standard Bank and interest rates
The credit institution has 4 cash loans, which are issued on the day of application. The terms of a loan at Russian Standard Bank for individuals depend on the choice of tariff.
Max. amount 500 000 r.
Min. rate 15%
Max. term 12 months
Max. the amount is 2,000,000 rubles.
Min. rate 19.9%
Max. term 60 months
Requirements for borrowers
- Russian citizenship
- Age from 23 to 70 years
- Permanent registration in Russia
- permanent employment
For example, according to the TP "Express lending 12" you can get a loan for fixed term when providing additional document(salary account statement, 2NDFL certificate, international passport with marks of travel abroad within the last 12 months, etc.)
The interest rate for this TP is floating: from the 1st to the 6th month, the loan is calculated at one rate, from the 7th to the 12th - at another. But the "Loan for loyal customers" is issued at a fixed rate for the entire term of the loan.
RSB has many useful services that will make loan repayment as convenient and simple as possible. So, for example, the service "I choose the date of payment" gives the borrower the opportunity to choose a convenient day for paying off the debt. However, the service has its limitations:
- The selected date cannot fall on the 1st, 29th, 30th or 31st of the month, or on the date of the loan
- When using the service at the time of obtaining a loan, it is impossible to set a date earlier than 15 days or later than 45 days from the date of granting the loan.
How to get a loan from Russian Standard Bank via the Internet?
To do this, you need to visit the online store of a partner of Russian Standard Bank and select the product you like. In the payment method, you need to specify the option "On credit".
After that, an application form for a loan will appear on the site. It needs to be filled. In a few minutes, the bank manager will call the phone number indicated in the questionnaire and ask a few questions. At the end of the conversation, the employee will report the decision made.
If the decision is positive, the selected product, together with loan agreement will bring the courier directly to the address of the borrower. On the spot, the borrower must present a passport, read the documents and sign them. After that, the courier will deliver the goods.
Requirements for borrowers
Clients who want to receive consumer loans Russian Standard bank cash for individuals must meet the minimum requirements:
- Age from 25 to 65 years. For POS loans, the minimum age is 23
- Citizenship of the Russian Federation and full legal capacity, no criminal record
- Permanent registration in the region of the bank's presence
- Source of income that will allow timely repayment of the loan
Bank loan calculator Russian Standard
Below is credit calculator Russian Standard Bank, where you can calculate any loan. Just paste the loan terms into the empty fields and click "Calculate".
-
Mortgage Loan Calculator for Android
Calculation and accounting of multiple loans. Export data via email. Ability to evaluate the benefits of early payments. Graphical representation of profitability using graphs. Settlement with change interest rate.
Loan calculator for iPhone/iPad
A version for iPhone and iPad is available. A convenient calculator that allows you to calculate a loan, and early repayment of a loan is also possible
Loan calculator for Windows Phone 7-8
- The ability to calculate any type of Russian Standard Bank loans, including mortgage, consumer and secured loans, car loans. As a rule, other calculators are designed to calculate just one or several types of loans, but not all at once.
- The client can calculate the loan taking into account the full or partial early repayment indicating the exact date and amount of the contribution. This will make the calculation as accurate as possible.
- The final result is displayed in the form of a payment schedule, which immediately shows the date and amount of each monthly payment and main parameters (overpayment, total debt by the end of the term, balance net debt after each installment, etc.)
- The result can be saved to a computer if necessary as an Excel file.
This one has additional features, which qualitatively distinguish it from the background of similar free programs:
Geography of RSB service
You can get RSB POS loans in almost every locality in the country where there are partner stores of a financial organization.
But Russian Standard Bank loans to individuals are issued only in the cities where the offices are located. Below are the addresses and contact details of the bank in the largest settlements in Russia.
Case No. 2-3057-10
SOLUTION
IN THE NAME OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
The Oktyabrsky District Court of the city of Belgorod, consisting of: the presiding judge Valyaev S.V., under the secretary Yevtushenko M.A.,
with the participation of the representative of the plaintiff Kozlov M.A.,
the representative of the defendant Pivovarova M.S.,
Having considered in open court a civil case on the claim of Khovrakh Zakhar Evgenievich against Russian Standard Bank CJSC on recognizing the agreement as terminated,
SET UP:
Russian Standard Bank CJSC and Howrakh signed an agreement on the provision and maintenance of a card with a credit limit.
Howrah received on a credit card ….rub.
The case was initiated by Howrah, who claims that he fulfilled his obligations to repay the loan and paid interest. However, instead of crediting amounts for the repayment of the principal and interest on it, the bank credited funds to repay the commission for servicing the loan and to repay the pass fee minimum payment. The bank also prevented him from fulfilling the contract, counting the incoming funds as payment for the services of maintaining a loan account, which he was not provided with. According to the tariff plan TP 1, approved by Order No. 263 dated April 11, 2005, the interest rate on Russian Standard cards is set at 23% per annum. The plaintiff believes that, based on this interest rate, he fulfilled his obligations to repay the loan and pay interest on it back in 2008, and all subsequent payments to the Bank are unjust enrichment for the defendant. The plaintiff asks the court to recognize the obligations arising from the agreement on the provision and maintenance of the card as terminated due to their actual performance.
At the hearing, the representative of the plaintiff Kozlov supported the stated requirements.
The representative of the defendant Pivovarov did not recognize the claim. She explained to the court that Howrah unreasonably refers to the illegality of the bank's actions to charge a commission for servicing an account and a fee for skipping the minimum payment under the agreement on the provision and servicing of a card, considering these conditions infringing on the rights of consumers. The plaintiff mistakenly believes that he has fulfilled his obligation to repay the loan in in full. The bank does not agree with the plaintiff's arguments, considers them far-fetched, unfounded, not corresponding to the actual circumstances.
The representative of the defendant asks to dismiss the claim.
After examining the circumstances at the hearing based on the evidence presented by the parties, the court recognizes the claims as justified.
By order dated April 5, 2005, Russian Standard Bank CJSC approved the “Terms and Conditions for the Provision and Maintenance of Russian Standard Cards”.
Khovrakh submitted a questionnaire to the bank and submitted an application containing proposals to conclude a loan agreement and a proposal to conclude an agreement on the provision and maintenance of the Russian Standard card.
Howrah applied to the bank with a statement about the exchange of goods for goods of greater or equal value.
According to the account - statement through an ATM card Howrah received from the defendant on credit ….rub.
Payments made by the plaintiff to repay the loan are reflected in the extract from the loan debt account and in the calculations provided by the defendant.
The presented evidence is relevant, admissible, does not cause the court to doubt their reliability. The totality of the examined evidence is sufficient to resolve the dispute and fully confirms the circumstances on which the claim is based.
According to the conditions for the provision and maintenance of Russian Standard cards approved by order No. 234 of Russian Standard Bank CJSC dated April 5, 2005, and the tariffs for cards approved by order No. 263 dated April 11, 2005, it follows that the bank for the amount of the principal debt a monthly fee for servicing the loan is charged in the amount of 1.9% (clause 7 of the Tariff Plan TP 1).
In the statement from the personal account on the card, which reflects all the movement on the bank card account, the indicated amounts for the period from .... 2005 to ... 2007 are reflected as repayment of the commission for servicing the loan, and only ... 2007 are reflected as a fee for servicing the account by PC, that is, by a personal card.
At the same time, clause 1 of the Tariff Plan TP 1 states that the fee for annual maintenance bills are not charged.
Thus, charging a fee for servicing a PC account is illegal, since such an opportunity is not provided for by the bank's tariffs and was carried out by the defendant in the absence of any legal grounds.
The bank's tariffs provide for a fee for skipping the minimum payment (clause 12 of Tariff Plan TP 1) and minimum percentage set at 5% (clause 11.1 of Tariff Plan TP 1).
Chapter 45 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation does not provide for the bank's right to apply penalties for lack of receipts Money account during a given period.
Article 858 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation establishes that the restriction of the client's rights to dispose of the funds on the account is not allowed, with the exception of seizing the funds on the account or suspending operations on the account in cases provided for by law.
In the absence of the required amount of funds in the account, at the request of the bank, the bank account agreement may be terminated by the court (clause 2, article 859 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).
Thus, the legislation does not grant the bank the rights to establish any minimum payment requirements for bank account agreements. In this regard, the bank does not have the right to charge penalties for non-compliance by the client with the conditions on the minimum payment.
During the term of the agreement, the bank illegally debited, first of all, the account maintenance fee, the fee for skipping a payment, then the interest on the loan and repayment of the principal debt.
The specified order is established by clause 4.12. conditions for the provision and maintenance of Russian Standard cards.
Art. 319 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation establishes the order of repayment monetary obligations, according to which the amount of the payment made, insufficient to fulfill the monetary obligation in full, in the absence of another agreement, repays, first of all, the costs of the creditor for obtaining the execution, then interest, and in the remainder - the principal debt.
The legislation does not provide for the right to establish the initial payment of commissions and fines; these funds can be recovered only after the payment of the principal debt.
The assignment of the amount received in the repayment of penalties is contrary to the provisions of Art. 319, 329 and 330 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, depriving the fine (forfeit) of a security character. These actions of the bank prevented the borrower from fulfilling obligations to repay the principal and interest, artificially increased the borrower's debt and his liability under the loan agreement.
Thus, from the moment the agreement was concluded, the bank prevented the borrower from fulfilling the agreement by counting the amounts received from the borrower in repayment of services for maintaining a loan account that were not provided to him. As a result of these actions, there was a violation of the conditions on the minimum payment, which in turn entailed the accrual of fines, which were repaid from the funds received from the borrower in the first place, which prevented the repayment of interest and principal amounts.
Recognizing the bank's actions as contrary to the law, the court agrees with the plaintiff's calculations, according to which (based on the interest rate - 23% per annum, established by paragraph 6 of the Tariff Plan TP 1) he fully paid the loan debt on December 19, 2008.
In accordance with paragraph 2 of part 2 of Art. 333.17 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, Art. 61.1, 61.3 of the RF BC state fee in the amount of 4000 rubles. recoverable from the defendant to the budget of the urban district "city of Belgorod".
Guided by Art. 194-199 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, court
Recognize the obligations arising from the agreement concluded by Khovrakh Zakhar Evgenievich with Russian Standard Bank CJSC on the provision and maintenance of card No. .... dated ....2005, terminated due to their actual execution.
Collect from CJSC "Russian Standard Bank" to the budget of the urban district "City of Belgorod" state duty….rub.
The decision of the court may be appealed in cassation to the Judicial Collegium for civil affairs Belgorod regional court within 10 days from the date of production of the decision in the final form by filing a cassation appeal through the Oktyabrsky District Court of Belgorod.
The decision may be appealed to the court of the supervisory instance within 6 months from the date of its entry into force, provided that the right to its cassation appeal has been used.
Hello! I want to complain about the illegal actions of Russian Standard Bank.
On March 27, 2009, I concluded an agreement No. 108165660 under the tariff plan TP 236/1 with a bank for issuing a credit card. I recently received a notification from the mail about a registered letter with a simple notice addressed to me from Russian Standard Bank. On May 13, 2015, I received this letter, which is noted in the notice that is sent to the bank.
The text of the letter said that Russian Standard Bank was very saddened by the situation with the increase key rate Central Bank, and that I am forced to change the interest rate upwards under my current loan agreement. The bank offers me to accept the terms of the new tariff plan on which I will be served. The condition for accepting the new service rules is only any operation on the card, except for its replenishment, starting from the period 04/27/2015 to 12/31/2015.
Since I received a letter with an alleged offer to choose other credit terms only on May 13, 2015, I could not know in any way that any operation on the card, except for replenishment, would be automatically accepted by the bank as my consent to change initial conditions of my loan agreement, of course, I made debit transactions on the card in the period from 04/27/2015 to 05/13/2015, having no idea that this would be considered by the bank as my consent to changing the terms of the loan. On the same day that I received ordered letter, I went to the Internet bank and checked my tariff plan, which had already been changed by the bank to TP 551.
I consider the actions of the bank not lawful, since the bank unilaterally changed the terms of my loan agreement, I did not give written consent to the change.
And the notice that my actions on the card starting from 05/27/2015 will be considered by the bank as consent to changing the conditions I received much later than the start of the calculation period for the acceptance of the new conditions of the bank, thereby the bank violated Article 29 federal law about banks and banking”, according to which a credit institution does not have the right to unilaterally change interest rates on loans, as well as change the procedure for their determination, including determining the amount of the interest rate on a loan, depending on changes in the conditions provided for in the loan agreement.
In addition, paragraph 4 of the same article prohibits banks from shortening the term of a loan agreement, increasing the amount of interest and changing the procedure for determining it, as well as increasing and even establishing commission fees for operations under such loan agreements.
And if for some reason I didn’t receive this letter at all, I would have no idea at all about the changes in my bank credit conditions. The bank acted very cunningly, making it so that it seemed to notify and made me an offer to confirm by my own actions my agreement to accept the new conditions. However, if I do not want to accept the new conditions of the bank, I should not use the card or terminate the agreement with the return of all funds to the bank at a time. Naturally, in such conditions created by the bank, many of its customers simply, without receiving notification in time, make card transactions, and the bank, at its discretion, changes the terms of the contract for them.
Case No. 33-802
Speaker: Korotchenkova I.I.
Referee: Vtorova N.N.
APPEALS DETERMINATION
On April 10, 2013, the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Oryol Regional Court, consisting of:
presiding Tsirkunova O.M.,
judges Korotchenkova I.I., Startseva S.A.,
under Secretary Sukhov D.A.
in open court in Mr.. Orel heard a civil case on the claim Pilyugina A.AND. to Russian Standard Bank CJSC on consumer protection
on the appeal of Russian Standard Bank CJSC against the decision of the Zavodskoy District Court of the city of Orel dated January 31, 2013, which ruled:
“The claims of Pilyugina L.I. to Russian Standard Bank CJSC on consumer rights protection - partially satisfied.
Recognize as invalid clause 2.76 of the Conditions for the provision and maintenance of cards issued by Russian Standard Bank CJSC to establish the collection of fees and commissions for card maintenance;
clause 8.8. Terms of provision and servicing of cards issued by Russian Standard Bank CJSC, which establishes the right of the bank to unilaterally amend the Terms and Tariffs;
Clause 10 of the Tariffs of Russian Standard Bank CJSC for Russian Standard cards on the establishment of a commission for settlement and cash services in the amount of 1.9%;
clause 9.2. Tariffs of Russian Standard Bank CJSC for Russian Standard cards on the establishment of a commission for the operation of receiving cash at the expense of a loan provided by the Bank in the amount of 4.9%;
collect from CJSC «Bank Russian Standard» in favor of Pilyugina L.AND. cash in the amount<...>and a fine of<...>.
The rest of the claim is dismissed.
Collect from CJSC "Russian Standard Bank" in income municipality"City of Eagle" state duty in the amount of<...>».
After hearing the report of the judge of the Oryol Regional Court Korotchenkova AND.AND., after hearing, explanations of the representatives of the defendant by proxy Kapranovu A.A. and Litvinova A.A., who supported the arguments of the appeal and additions to it, the objections of the representative of the plaintiff by proxy Galitskova C.GN. Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Oryol Regional Court
installed:
Pilyugina L.I. filed a lawsuit against Russian Standard Bank CJSC for the protection of consumer rights.
In support of the claim, she stated that<дата>applied to Russian Standard Bank CJSC and a loan agreement No. In connection with the proper execution said agreement <дата>an agreement was concluded with her on the provision and maintenance of card No. by opening an account No. At the same time, in the name of the plaintiff, was issued bank card which has been activated<дата>to the limit<...>. Subsequently, the limit was increased to<...>and then to<...>. During the period of the contract with<дата>By<дата>the amount of interest for using the loan was 23%, with<дата>By<дата>– 36% per annum, from<дата>- 42% per annum. For the period from<дата>By<дата>under the contract were charged:
Interest on the loan in the amount<...>;
Monthly account maintenance fees (1.9% of the loan amount at the end of the billing period) in the amount of<...>;
Fee for cash withdrawal in the amount of<...>;
Fee for providing information about transactions made using the card in the amount of<...>;
Fee for skipping the minimum payment in the amount of<...>.
As of<дата>according to the bank's calculations, the credit card debt is<...>.
Considering that some provisions of the Conditions for the provision and maintenance of cards issued by Russian Standard Bank CJSC, the tariffs of Russian Standard Bank CJSC for credit cards are void, and payments that were not based on the law were withheld from it, the plaintiff believed that she there is no debt to the bank, but there is an overpayment, in connection with which, the court asked:
To invalidate clause 2.7 of the Conditions for the provision and maintenance of cards issued by Russian Standard Bank CJSC, which establishes the collection of fees and commissions for card maintenance in accordance with applicable law;
To invalidate clause 8.8 of the Conditions for the provision and maintenance of cards issued by Russian Standard Bank CJSC, which establishes the right of the bank to unilaterally amend the Conditions and Tariffs;
To invalidate clause 10 of the Tariffs of Russian Standard Bank CJSC for Russian Standard cards on the establishment of a commission for settlement and cash services in the amount of 1.9%;
To collect from Russian Standard Bank CJSC in its favor the amount of overpayment on credit card No. in the amount of<...>.
defendant CJSC «Bank Russian Standard» claims Pilyugina A.AND. did not acknowledge.
The Court upheld the above decision.
In the appeal and addenda to the appeal, the representative of Russian Standard Bank CJSC raises the issue of canceling the court decision and issuing a new decision in the case to dismiss the claims.
In support of the arguments of the appeal, he refers to the fact that the time limit has expired. limitation period appeals Pilyugina L.I. demanding that the terms of the contract be declared null and void.
believes that the court misjudged legal nature the agreement concluded with the plaintiff, which, according to the defendant, is mixed and includes the terms of the loan agreement and the bank account agreement.
He argues that the current legislation does not contain a ban on unilateral changes in the terms of the contract.
Refers to the fact that an increase in the interest rate on a loan to 36% and up to 42% does not violate the rights of the borrower, since the introduction of a new interest rate is due to the abolition of the commission for servicing a bank account, and as a result, the effective interest rate and the financial burden on the borrower were reduced.
Indicates that the court did not examine the evidence presented, did not evaluate them, did not check the calculation of the effective rate, which led to the adoption of an incorrect decision.
It also indicates that the plaintiff did not open a loan account, but a bank account.
Refers to the fact that the specific conditions for the provision of funds for settlements on transactions made using settlement cards, credit cards, the procedure for the return of funds provided, the procedure for documentary confirmation of the provision and return of funds, as well as the accrual and payment of interest on these funds may be determined in a contract with a client.
At the same time, he believes that the establishment in the bank account agreement of a monthly commission for the possibility of crediting a bank account (overdraft) is legitimate, since the service paid by the client consists in providing the bank with the opportunity to make a payment, despite the insufficiency or absence of funds in the current account.
He believes that the condition of the agreement on the collection of a commission for the issuance of cash cannot be considered void, since the fee for the issuance of cash is provided for by the agreement, does not contradict the law, and was charged with the consent of the plaintiff.
He argues that the calculation presented by the plaintiff and the basis of the court decision was made with errors and is inadmissible and unreliable evidence, is not mutually related to the circumstances of the case, while the court did not give a proper assessment to the calculations presented by the bank.
In addition, in support of the complaint, the calculation of economic feasibility and the need to change the terms of the agreement in terms of increasing the interest rate on the loan.
Having considered the case materials within the limits of the arguments set out in the appeal and objections to the appeal, in accordance with the provisions of Article 327.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the panel of judges finds no reason to cancel the court decision.
It appears from the case file that<дата>Pilyugina L.I. applied to Russian Standard Bank CJSC with an application to conclude a loan agreement and an agreement on the provision and maintenance of the Russian Standard card.
Pilyugina L.I. when signing the said application, she was familiarized with the Conditions for the provision and maintenance of cards issued by Russian Standard Bank CJSC (case sheet 148).
As determined by the court,<дата>on the basis of the statement Pilyugina L.AND. Russian Standard Bank CJSC entered into an agreement with her on card No., opened an account No. and issued Russian Standard card No. in her name on the terms of provision and maintenance of Russian Standard cards and tariffs for Russian Standard cards, that is, card agreement No. dated<дата>.
At the time of conclusion Pilyugina L.AND. and Russian Standard Bank CJSC of the card agreement, the Conditions for the provision and servicing of cards issued by Russian Standard Bank CJSC, approved by Order No.<дата>and Tariff plan TP no.
Under the terms of the tariff plan TP No., the amount of interest accrued on the loan amounted to 23% per annum; monthly fee for servicing the Loan - 1.9%; and was also provided, including a fee for the issuance of cash at ATMs and cash points of the Bank and other credit organizations; and the fee for skipping the minimum payment, which is within the meaning of Art. 330 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation - forfeit.
In accordance with clause 8.8 of the Card Terms and Conditions, the Bank has the right to unilaterally amend these terms and conditions and tariffs, having previously notified the client of the changes introduced, in accordance with clause 2.10 of these terms and conditions.
Order and.about. Chairman of the Board of Russian Standard Bank CJSC from<дата>No. from the indicated date, changes were made to the tariffs for Russian Standard cards, tariff plan TP No. was established, under the terms of which the amount of interest accrued on a loan for the amount of the Credit provided for the implementation of debit transactions for payment for goods amounted to 22% per annum; for the amount of the loan for other operations, including for the amount of the loan provided for payment by the client to the Bank of accrued commission payments and interest for the use of the loan and other payments - 36% per annum; no commission was charged for account maintenance, the fees and commissions provided for by the previously valid tariff fee have changed slightly (vol. 3. pp. 116-121).
By order of the Chairman of the Board of CJSC Russian Standard Bank dated<дата>No. with<дата>also, changes were made to the tariffs for Russian Standard cards, a tariff plan was established, under the terms of which the amount of interest accrued on a loan for the amount of the Credit provided for the implementation of debit transactions for payment for goods amounted to 42% per annum (i.e. 3 l.d. 136).
According to clause 2.10 of the Terms, if the Bank changes the terms and / or tariffs, the Bank notifies the client about this no later than 10 calendar days before the date of entry into force of such changes by any of the methods provided for by the conditions.
The information about the change in the interest rate up to 36% was posted by the bank on the corresponding website, about the change in the interest rate up to 42% the plaintiff was notified by registered mail with notification, which was not disputed by her in the court of first instance.
However, as follows from statement of claim, in support of her claims to recognize the loan agreement as fulfilled, the plaintiff referred, among other things, to the circumstances that the Bank illegally and unilaterally repeatedly significantly increased the interest rate on the loan, which unlawfully led to an increase in debt on it.
Checking these arguments Pilyugina LI, the trial court came to the conclusion about their validity. At the same time, the court proceeded from the fact that the current legislation governing legal relations arising from loan and credit agreements provides that the amount of the loan fee is an essential condition to be agreed by the parties to the agreement.
In accordance with Federal Law No. 395-1 of December 2, 1990 "On Banks and Banking Activities" (as amended in force at the time of the conclusion of the card agreement), interest rates on loans, deposits (deposits) and commission fees on operations are set by the credit institution according to agreement with clients, unless otherwise provided by federal law (Part 1 of Article 29 of the Law).
Part 2 of the same article provides that a credit institution does not have the right to unilaterally change interest rates on loans, contributions (deposits), commission fees and the validity period of these agreements with clients, except for cases provided for by federal law or an agreement.
At the same time, in accordance with the same Federal Law "On Banks and Banking Activities", the bank is not granted the right to arbitrarily change the fee for using a loan without business case specific interest rate. Any other interpretation of this provision is contrary to general principles civil law, allows for the possibility of abuse by credit institutions of the rights granted to them and puts the parties to the loan agreement in a deliberately unequal position.
Thus, according to the meaning of the above rules of law in their systemic unity, it follows that the existence of grounds with which, under the terms of the loan agreement, the possibility of unilateral change by the bank of the amount of the fee (interest) for the loan is associated, is subject to proof by the bank, since between the participants in the loan agreement, by virtue of the provisions articles 1, 10 Civil Code.
Taking into account that in the present case the Bank has not provided reliable evidence of the reasonableness and justification of increasing the interest on the loan agreement, the court of appeal considers that the terms of the loan agreement, which provide for an increase in the interest rate on the loan from 23% to 36%, and subsequently to 42 % per annum are invalid according to Art. 168 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation on grounds due to the contradiction of Articles 1 and 10 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.
Accordingly, the interest on the loan during the action concluded between Pilyugina A.AND. and Russian Standard Bank CJSC contracts are subject to calculation at the rate of 23% per annum.
Link in the appeal to Art. 421 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which establishes the principle of freedom of contract, including in relation to the legal relations that have arisen in terms of the agreement by the parties of the disputed conditions at the time of the conclusion of the loan agreement, cannot entail the cancellation of the court decision, since these conditions do not entail the plaintiff's obligation to fulfill them, since such the conditions are null and void from the date of conclusion of the contract.
Based on the materials of the case, it was also established that during the validity period of the Tariff plan No. from the date of activation of the card to<дата>Pilyugina L.I. a monthly fee for servicing the Loan was charged in the amount of 1.9% of the loan amount at the end of the billing period, excluding interest, commissions and fees, as well as up to<дата>a commission was paid for receiving cash at the expense of a loan provided by the bank in the amount of 4.9%.
According to Pilyugina L.I. these terms of the contract are also null and void and infringe on her consumer rights.
The judicial board finds the plaintiff's arguments justified, because, as the court of first instance correctly pointed out, within the meaning of Article 819 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation in its systemic unity with paragraph 2 of Art. 5, Art. 29, 30 of the Federal Law "On Banks and Banking Activities", Regulations on the Rules for maintaining accounting V credit organizations located on the territory of the Russian Federation, approved by the Central Bank of the Russian Federation dated March 26, 2007 No. 302-P (effective at the time of the conclusion of the disputed agreement), the collection of the specified commission for servicing the Credit is the provision additional service when purchasing a basic service (obtaining a loan), which is contrary to paragraph 2 of Article 16 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On Protection of Consumer Rights", by virtue of which it is forbidden to condition the purchase of some goods (works, services) compulsory acquisition other goods.
At the same time, the panel of judges agrees with the conclusion of the court that the specified commission is set by the Bank for such actions that do not directly create any independent benefit for the client that is not related to the loan agreement concluded by the parties, therefore, within the meaning of Article 779 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, it is not a service that the Bank, as a contractor, undertakes to provide on the instructions of the customer (client) who is obliged to pay for it.
In view of the foregoing, the argument of the appeal that this commission does not relate to servicing the loan, but to the bank account agreement, is untenable.
Checking the plaintiff's arguments about the contradiction of the requirements of the law of the specified terms of the contract, the district court rightly concluded that such conditions infringe on the rights of Pilyugina A.AND. as a consumer, and contradict current legislation, since they were actually directed by the bank to establish the obligation of the borrower to pay new borrowing interest on borrowed interest ( compound interest), while by virtue of paragraph 1 of Art. 809 and paragraph 1 of Art. 819 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, interest can be charged only on the amount of the principal debt. Therefore, I rightfully came to the conclusion that the calculation of the monetary obligations of Pilyugina L.I. before the Bank in the absence of such terms of the contract, which are invalid.
In the court of appeal, the representative of Russian Standard Bank CJSC explained that he disputed the calculation made by the plaintiff and presented at the last meeting of the judicial panel only due to the fact that it was made without taking into account the above conditions, recognized by the court insignificant. Meanwhile, the method of calculation and the result obtained as a result of such calculation without taking into account the disputed positions, according to which Pilyugina L.I. there is no debt to the Bank for credit obligations, the representative of the Bank was not disputed.
The panel of judges found the calculation made by the court to be correct.
Under such circumstances, and also taking into account the lack of evidence in the case file, testifying to the achievement between the plaintiff and ZAO Russian Standard Insurance(Insurer) all the essential terms of the lending agreement, the district court rightly satisfied the claims of Pilyugina A.AND. on the recognition of obligations under the card agreement dated<дата>No. completed.
The argument of the appeal of Russian Standard Bank CJSC that the court unlawfully did not apply the limitation period to claims for recognizing the terms of the card agreement as invalid and applying the consequences of their invalidity cannot lead to the cancellation of the court decision, since the court satisfied the requirements for the recognition of Pilyugina L .AND. performed the contract and the limitation period for these claims is not missed. In addition, it is seen that the plaintiff paid the loan in parts, and therefore, the limitation period begins in respect of each individual part from the date of its execution.
The remaining arguments of the appeal are based on an erroneous interpretation of the law, are aimed at reassessing the evidence collected in the case, challenging the conclusions of the court and do not indicate the illegality of the contested decision.
Violations of the norms of substantive or procedural law, entailing the annulment of a court decision and the grounds for annulment of a court decision, provided for Article 330 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, in the case is not available.
Guided by Article.Article. 328, 329 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Oryol Regional Court
determined:
The decision of the Zavodskoy District Court of the city of Orel dated January 31, 2013 is left unchanged, and the appeal of Russian Standard Bank CJSC to cancel the decision is not satisfied.
presiding
4.2 786Appendix 2. Numbers and dates of the Orders of Russian Standard Bank
Changing the Terms:
Order No. 666 dated 11/27/2003
Order No. 372 dated 04/13/2004
Order No. 454 dated 05.05.2004 (recognizes the previous Conditions as invalid - No. 372)
Order No. 234 of 04/05/2005
Order No. 538 dated 06/27/2005 (recognizes conditions No. 234 dated 04/05/2005 as invalid)
Order No. 698 dated 03.08.2005 (repeals Conditions No. 538 dated 06.27.2005)
Order No. 940/1 dated 10/14/2005 (annulls the previous Conditions - No. 698 from 10/24/2005)
Order No. 1184/1 of November 29, 2006
Tariff Changes:
Order No. 323 dated 30.03.2004
Order No. 643 dated 11/20/2003
Order No. 323 dated 30.03.2004
Order No. 413 dated 22.04.2004 (recognizes as invalid tariffs for RS cards approved by Order No. 323 dated 30.03.2004)
No. 1204 dated December 30, 2004 (recognizes the previous Tariffs as invalid - No. 413 with Order dated January 12, 2005)
Order No. 263 dated 11.04.2005
Order No. 538 dated 06/27/2005 (amends TP 1-15, 17-23, 25 the rate of the Tariff for the item "Commission for over-limit debt" equal to 0.1% per day, in TP 1 the article "Coefficient for calculating the minimum payment in the amount of 4% of the amount of the card limit, recognizes as invalid from 07/11/2005, "Tariffs for Russian Standard cards" Order No. 263 of 04/11/2005)
Order No. 709 of 08.08.2005 (changing the list of card products of Order No. 538)
Order No. 851 dated 09/21/2005 (recognizes the previous Tariffs as invalid - No. 709 dated 08/08/2005, changes the conditions of TP 2,3,4,4a,8a, 9,9a,14,15,17,19,24)
Order No. 73/1 of 01/27/2006
Order No. 170/1 dated 20.02.2006 (annulls the previous Tariffs No. 73/1 dated 27.01.2006)
Order No. 1185 dated 09/29/2006
Order No. 243/1 dated 01/29/2007
Order No. 1870 dated 06/20/2007
Order No. 2045 dated 07/05/2007 (on supplementing the list of Tariffs with tariff plan TP 52)
Order No. 2651/1 dated 08/15/07 (recognizes the previous Tariffs as invalid - No. 709 from 08/15/2007)
Order No. 3579/2 dated 29.08.2008
Order No. 5101/1 dated November 28, 2008 (indicates the total cost of the loan in TP52)
Order No. 1267 of 04/09/2009 (orders not to provide individuals who applied to the Bank for the purpose of processing documents with standard forms: “ Full cost credit card "Russian Standard" with TP 38, 56, 57, 31, 52, 55")
2264/1 of 07/15/2009
Explanation.
There is a practice in BRS - the Tariffs and Conditions are changed several times a year, and the previous Tariffs and Conditions are recognized as invalid. Because there is a fairly decent period between the signing of the offer and its acceptance, then it would be reasonable to check whether the Conditions and Tariffs have changed. That is, if the offer was signed on April 30, 2004, and the consumer activated the card in February 2005, then this means that the acceptance was already accepted on different Terms with different Tariff plans, because. the previous ones are no longer valid.
Article 443 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation states that “an answer about consent to conclude an agreement on conditions other than those proposed in the offer is not an acceptance. Such a response is recognized as a refusal of acceptance and at the same time a new offer. The bank's response cannot be a new offer, because in this case, there is no mandatory written form of the contract. Thus, if the Terms and Tariffs have changed in the period from the moment of signing the offer to activating the card, the fact of activating the card cannot be considered an acceptance.
From the book Russia is sovereign. How to make money with the country author Chernyshev Sergey BorisovichRussian smoke In 1984, one of the leading ideologues of the CPSU told us in a private conversation: there are only two modern states- The USA and the Soviet Union. There were two modern states. By that time, one of them had a post-industrial superstructure that provided
From the book Creating an enterprise that would work written by Michael GerberPROPERTY MANAGEMENT: THE RUSSIAN STANDARD Exposure session The editors of the Evropa publishing house are increasingly insisting on presenting concrete recipes for increasing capitalization. Cards on the table! Not that they suspected the author of quackery - there was an opportunity
From the book Will and Vision. How latecomers end up running the markets by Tellis GerardStandard One: Money Money is the first standard of your strategic goal. You want to make big profits. How big? How big is your company supposed to get over time? Will it cost $300,000? Or a million? Five hundred million? If you don't
From the book Fast-management. Managing is easy if you know how author Nesterov Fedor FedorovichAnnex 2. Key companies and dates in the surveyed
From the book Card Business Security: Business Encyclopedia author Aleksanov A. K. From the book Infobusiness at full capacity [Doubling Sales] author Parabellum Andrey AlekseevichPCI DSS Standard History of the Standard last years Bank hacking cases are on the rise around the world. information systems, as well as facts of fraud and theft of cardholder data. This unhealthy trend was one of the main reasons that prompted
From the book Infobusiness in one day the author Ushanov Azamat From the book The Development of Memory by Lorraine Harry From the book Twitonomics. Everything you need to know about economics, short and to the point author Compton Nick From the book Understand Risks. How to choose the right course author Gigerenzer GerdCHAPTER 12 Items, Prices, Phone Numbers HL: I can imagine the first question people will ask when they learn that you've memorized the first few hundred pages of a Manhattan phone book is, "What's the point of that?" JL: If they asked me about it, I would
From the book It won't be easy [How to build a business when there are more questions than answers] author Horowitz BenChapter 15 Anniversaries, Signs of the Zodiac, Historical Dates The same principle that we use to remember the day and hour applies to remembering the day and month. Any date that falls within the first ten days of the first nine months of the year can be represented by a major
From the book 500 objections with Evgeny Frantsev author Frantsev Evgeny From the book of 100 objections. business and sales author Frantsev Evgeny