Agreement between UFC-Que Choisir and La Banque Postale on the home savings plan

On March 31, 2021, UFC-Que Choisir announced that it had summoned La Banque Postale before the Paris Court of Justice, so that it could be ordered to stop a practice consisting in forcing the holders of a home savings plan (PEL ) to open a paying current account. Thursday, March 17, almost a year later, before the judgment was rendered, consumer association announces that it has reached an agreement with this bank, on the conditions of opening and operation of its plans.

The UFC accused the bank of exercising a kind of blackmail on its customers: if they did not want their PEL to be closed, they had to open a current account and make regular payments on it. To open this account, they had to pay a minimum of 13.20 euros per year, but the fees charged could reach 100 euros. Those who refused to submit saw their PEL closed.

No legal provision

However, asserted the UFC, the ELP is a “free product ” and “no legal provision requires its holder to also open a current account in the bank concerned”. The only obligation foreseen consists in making each year, at regular intervals – monthly, quarterly or half-yearly – payments on the ELP.

The agreement reached provides, according to the UFC, that:

  • consumers holding a PEL with La Banque Postale, or wishing to take out a PEL, are no longer required to hold a postal checking account (CCP);
  • PELs held at La Banque Postale can now be funded from an account opened in the customer’s name at another bank;
  • customer information on obligations relating to payments on PELs (minimum subscription payment, minimum annual payment, frequency, consequences of non-compliance with these obligations) is reinforced.
Read also UFC-Que Choisir sues La Banque Postale for its rules on home savings plans

In addition, consumers whose PEL was terminated by La Banque Postale at the end of 2020 because they did not have a CCP or did not subscribe to the “Regulys” scheduled payment service were able to request the reopening of their PEL, under identical conditions to those of the closure, that is to say with their seniority and, above all, the same interest rate. This agreement puts an end to the legal proceedings.

Rafaele Rivais

source site-30