Report on Alternative Banking Dispute Resolution 30.06.2017

As of mid-last year, ABDRC has reported on its work in the end of each quarter. Thus, so far, the reports for the quarters ended on the following dates have been drawn up and posted on our website: 30.06.2016, 30.09.2016, 31.12.2016 (annual report), and as at 31.03.2017.

In the first 6 months of 2017, the following were registered:

  • (approximately) 4,300 consumer requests by phone;
  • 416 written applications:
    • 162 of the written applications were found compliant;
    • 246 were questions or requests for miscellaneous/general information to which the Procedural Secretariat replied in writing;
    • 8 non-compliant applications.


Means of filing compliant applications:

  • 108 were filed by email;
  • 29 were brought to, and registered by consumers with the office of ABDRC.
  • 25 were mailed by consumers.


Qualification of the 162 compliant applications:

  • 39 turned into casefiles (2 casefiles were consolidated; 5 casefiles formed this year come from applications filed in the end of last year);
  • 23 in screening phase (review of documents);
  • 105 closed;


Breakdown of the 38 casefiles managed under the conciliation procedure:

  • 15 resolutions rendered;
  • 7 reports issued;
  • 5 preliminary casefiles;
  • 9 casefiles in phase of discussions/meetings with the parties;
  • 1 inadmissibility resolution;
  • 1 casefile in which the trader withdrew from the procedure.



Both the interest and awareness of the consumers of ABDRC have raised compared to last year. The results of the first 6 months of 2017 are better than for the entire 2016, according to the figure compared:

In 10 months of operation in 2016 (March – December), the following were registered:

  • 235 compliant applications – 23.5 applications per month;
  • 46 casefiles – 4.6 casefiles per month;
  • 26 non-compliant applications – 2.6/month.

In the first 6 months of 2017, the following were registered:

  • 162 applications – 27 applications per month;
  • 38 casefiles – 6.33 casefiles per month;
  • 8 non-compliant applications – 1.33/month.


The applications received from consumers targeted the following types of claims:

  • return of the risk fee charged for a loan;
  • loan rescheduling/staging out;
  • reduction of the monthly instalments, when the consumer assesses that the monthly instalments have been abusively increased by the trader;
  • return of the management fee, the monitoring fee or other categories of fees – perceived by consumers as unlawfully charged;
  • return of the amount resulted from the excessive increase in the interest rate, as perceived by consumers;
  • reduction of the interest rate, and freezing of exchange rate at the rate applied at execution of the loan agreement (in CHF);
  • defaults of the contractual conditions by traders, leading to declaration of the loan early repayable;
  • calculation and payment of the instalments in RON, at the rate of exchange applied at the time when the agreement was concluded;
  • removal of clauses qualified by consumers as abusive, as regards application of default interests;
  • deregistration of entries in the Credit Register, etc.

The main reasons for closing compliant applications, as claimed by traders:

  • traders do not belong to the category of those the business of which is regulated by the National Bank of Romania pursuant to the Government Ordinance no. 38/2015 (assigned claims);
  • claimants are not consumers, as defined in the Government Ordinance no. 21/1992;
  • the trader refused resolution of the dispute under ADR procedures for the following reasons:
    • pending court proceedings where a final solution/court judgment is expected;
    • all settlement efforts have already been exhausted (in the trader’s opinion);
    • the agreement observes the legal provisions (in the trader’s opinion);
    • amicable settlement between the consumer and the trader is being attempted;
    • several offers were made, but all have been turned down by the consumer (before approaching ABDRC);
    • forced execution procedures have already been initiated;
    • lack of substance (claimed by the trader) for the consumer’s application;
  • no reasons provided.