Ombudsmann-Tätigkeitsbericht 2012

6
attachment that are not used can be carried over into
the following month was therefore often the subject
of complaints.
The fact that banks charge customers the cost of posting
them account statements repeatedly led to complaints.
Complaints in the area of non-card-based payments
concern mainly the length of time taken to execute
credit transfers, as well as misdirected credit transfers
and the fees charged for foreign credit transfers.
In the area of card-based payments, complaints focus
on questions relating to the use of girocards or credit
cards, e.g. the fees charged for using cards at cash
machines or for issuing second cards and whether credit
card statements were legitimate or comprehensible.
Also cause for complaint are cases where customers buy
goods which they pay for using a card, thus authorising
their bank to debit the amount in question from their
account, and subsequently want to cancel this direct
debit because the underlying legal relationship proves
to be faulty, e.g. they have not received the goods they
paid for. Customers fail to realise that in such cases they
should contact the party with whom they do business
and that their bank does not bear the risk of a faulty
legal relationship between customer and supplier.
Complaints repeatedly concern claims for compensation
for losses incurred through the fraudulent use of a
girocard. In most cases, complainants cannot challenge
the so-called prima facie evidence rule, which under
established case law (see BGH XI ZR 210/03, Wertpapier-
Mitteilungen [WM] 2004, 2309 ff.) indicates gross
negligence in handling a girocard and/or a PIN, so that
the bank cannot be required to pay compensation.
Basic account
Complaints by customers concerning the opening or
continued operation of a current account on a funds-
only basis are assigned to the “basic account” area.
These complaints are given priority status and are
usually dealt with within one to three months. The
advantage of the quick and unbureaucratic ombudsman
proceedings over recourse to a court of law is particularly
obvious here. The ombudsman rules in such cases on
whether a bank has complied with the “current account
for everyone” recommendation issued by the German
Banking Industry Committee (GBIC).
At 236 in 2012, the number of complaints concerning a
basic account has continued to decline since 2010. Most
complaints in this area – 144 – were made because a
bank refused to open an account for a customer. Only
92 complaints involved cases where a bank closed an
existing account.
The large number of complaints (121) settled in favour
of customers should be noted. In only 25 of these
121 cases did the ombudsman actually adjudicate –
the remainder were resolved by the bank under the
preliminary examination procedure. 70 complaints were
not pursued any further by customers.
It is important in practice that the majority of
complaints are settled in favour of customers during
the ombudsman proceedings because the bank opens
the requested account for the customer or cancels the
closure of an account. Ombudsman decisions in cases
where the bank has failed to comply with the GBIC
recommendation are virtually always put into effect.
6.3 Recognition of the Ombudsman Scheme
The German private commercial banks’ Ombudsman
Scheme is widely recognised – not only by customers
and banks, but also by government bodies at national
and European level:
For disputes between customers and private
commercial banks relating to credit transfer law and
misuse of payment cards, the ombudsman replaces the
102 Tätigkeitsbericht 2012