The interest shown by consumers in ABDRC is above what we observed in the same period of last year, including in the aftermath of the pandemic-triggered financial distress. The figures in the end of Q3 of this year, compared to those of the same period of last year, are 23% better in terms of the number of applications received. If we are to look into the cases resolved (under resolutions, or by amicable settlement after an initial referral to ABDRC), the situation is similar to that of last year, with the number of conciliation cases formed going down, but with more and more amicable (direct) settlement between financial and banking institutions and consumers.

During the first nine months of 2020, as many as 487 consumers went through the entire conciliation process (application filing, negotiation, final resolution accepted by both parties), or reached an amicable settlement directly with banks/NBFIs, having first approached ABDRC. The situation is somehow close to 2019, when 511 Romanians were reported in one of these two situations during the same period. Furthermore, as of Q1 2020, legal entities can also refer to ABDRC cases related to payment services and electronic money issuing. ABDRC has already received six such applications so far, but the financial institutions involved, which could have entered negotiations thereon, rejected them.

Close to 2,050 Romanians have approached the Alternative Banking Dispute Settlement Centre (ABDRC) in the first nine months of this year to find amicable solutions in their relations with banks and NBFIs. Compared to the first nine months of 2019 (1,676 applications in Q3 2019), consumers filed 22% more applications.

Of the total number of applications received in Q3 2020, 1,557 concerned different issues in relation with banks, whereas 491 concerned different issues in relation with NBFIs.

The total number of cases formed in the end of Q3 2020 reached 433, of which 411 involved banks, and 22 such cases concerned NBFIs. Of these casefiles, 228 concluded with a resolution (the parties accepted the solution proposed by the conciliator), and additional 125 cases are currently in progress. In 59 cases, the parties rejected the solution the conciliator rendered and a report was issued, whereas in 21 cases, the parties withdrew from the procedure.

Furthermore, 259 applications were settled amicably by traders, having first approached ABDRC (traders negotiated directly with consumers), broken down as follows: 211 applications settled amicably with banks, and 48 applications settled amicably with NBFIs.

In September 2020, the Alternative Banking Dispute Resolution Centre celebrated its 5-year anniversary.

In the end of this year’s third quarter, we counted approximately 4,585 queries by phone.

The break-down of applications on banks/NBFIs is as follows:

Banks:

• 1,557 compliant applications;
• 200 non-compliant applications;
• 680 requests for miscellaneous information.

Classification of the 1,557 compliant applications:

• 411 cases created in the end of Q3 2020;
• 113 in screening phase – documents are being reviewed;
• 211 applications were settled amicably by the parties, but this after the consumer having first referred the case to ABDRC;
• 840 cases were closed.

Classification of the 411 casefiles in the procedure with proposed solution/conciliation:

• 223 resolutions rendered – the parties reached an agreement;
• 107 casefiles in the phase of discussions with the parties;
• 51 reports – the parties failed to reach an agreement;
• 9 preliminary casefiles;
• 21 casefiles in which one party withdrew from the procedure.

Means of filing compliant applications:

• 1,110 were submitted via the app (website);
• 365 were emailed;
• 50 were mailed;
• 32 were brought to, and registered by consumers with the office of ABDRC.

NBFIs:

• 491 compliant applications;

Classification of the 491 compliant applications:

• 22 cases created in the end of Q3 2020;
• 201 in screening phase – documents are being reviewed;
• 48 applications were settled amicably between the NBFI and the consumer concerned, however after the having first consumer approached ABDRC;
• 220 were closed – rejected by the NBFIs;

Classification of the 22 casefiles in the procedure with proposed solution/conciliation:

• 5 resolutions rendered – the parties reached an agreement;
• 9 casefiles in the phase of discussions with the parties;
• 8 reports – the parties failed to reach an agreement;
• 0 preliminary casefiles;
• 0 casefiles in which one party withdrew from the procedure.

Means of filing compliant applications:

• 396 were submitted via the app (website);
• 66 were filed by email;
• 15 were mailed;
• 14 were brought to, and registered by consumers with the office of ABDRC.

The applications received from consumers covered the following topics:

• Problems in connection with credit products:
  • Repayments (fees/commissions, interest);
  • Reduction of loan balance/debt/installation, or writing off thereof;
  • Rescheduling/refinancing/staging-out;
  • Agreement renegotiation/rebalancing (including in case of hardships);
  • Finding a solution to address the problems (in general);
  • Finding a solution to address the problems generated by the pandemics;
  • Conversion of the loan currency;
  • Problems with insurance policies (bancassurance);
  • Interest recalculation;
  • Payment commitments;
  • Maturity acceleration;
  • Credit Office (deregistration from CO);
  • Removal of certain clauses.

• Operational problems:
  • Problems with operation of the ATMs (including repayment of amounts);
  • Problems in connection with bank transfers and repayment of transaction fees;
  • Repayment of amounts in case of processing errors;
  • Recovery of amount wrongly transferred by consumers (internet banking);
  • Provision of clarifications as to the means of calculation applied to the amounts withdrawn by banks from the credit card account;
  • Other card-related problems (cancellation/name change);
  • Problems in connection with the exchange rate and interests charged when using the cards abroad;
  • Problems regarding inter-banking transfers.

• Problems related to other types of activities:
  • Problems in connection with forced execution (suspensions/stays of proceedings);
  • Requests to be issued documents (repayment schedules, statement of accounts, etc.);
  • Repayment of garnished amounts;
  • Mortgage deregistration;
  • Suspension of instalments (pursuant to the Government Emergency Ordinance no. 37/2020).

Applications are closed when traders refused the settlement of the disputes via the ADR procedure, and reasons for closing fall within several categories:

• Good reasons (main) – the application concerns:
  • deregistration of entries from the Credit Office;
  • “First House” loans;
  • assigned claims;
  • the state premium under saving-credit contracts.

• Reasons related to consumers:
  • selection of a trader the business of which is not regulated by the National Bank of Romania;
  • selection of a trader they don’t have commercial relations with;
  • the information/documents required for resolving the application have not been supplied.

• Other reasons:
  • pending court proceedings;
  • forced execution procedures have already been initiated;
  • traders made several offers, but all of them were turned down by consumers (before approaching ABDRC), and traders maintain their point of view in the initial answer sent to consumers.

NOTE:

The interest shown by consumers in ABDRC is above what we observed in the same period of last year, including in the aftermath of the pandemic-triggered financial distress. The figures in the end of Q3 of this year, compared to those of the same period of last year, are 23% better in terms of the number of applications received. If we are to look into the cases resolved (under resolutions, or by amicable settlement after an initial referral to ABDRC), the situation is similar to that of last year, with the number of conciliation cases formed going down, but with more and more amicable (direct) settlement between financial and banking institutions and consumers.

The figures observed in the end of Q3 2020 show a monthly average above both the average of Q3 2019, as well as the all-2019 average, in terms of number of applications received, and number of cases settled amicably by the parties, having first approached ABDRC.

Q3 2019 in figures:
• 1,676 compliant applications – 186 applications/month;
• 522 applications admitted by banks/NBFIs:
• 58 cases (average no. of cases/month);
• 183 applications settled amicably by the parties after an initial referral to ABDRC – (an average of 20 amicably settled applications/month).

2019 in figures (entire year):
• 2,117 applications – 176 applications per month;
• 664 casefiles – 55 casefiles per month;
• 244 applications settled amicably – 20 amicably settled applications per month.

Q3 2020 in figures:
• 2,048 compliant applications – 228 applications/month;
• 433 applications admitted by banks/NBFIs:
• 48 cases (average no. of cases/month);
• 259 applications settled amicably by the parties after an initial referral to ABDRC – (an average of 28 amicably settled applications/month).

Statistical information about Q3 2020:

CONCLUSIONS:

The ABDRC services continue to be accessed by increasingly more Romanians. Benefits of conciliation: the court proceedings avoided and the continued contractual relations between parties, the short case settlement time (less than 90 days), the procedure is free of charge for consumers, and the expertise of conciliators are important benefits for both consumers and the financial and banking institutions involved in these negotiations, particularly during economically difficult times, like the ones we had to cope with during the first three quarters of the year. In this context, the conclusions drawn for the first nine months of the year are as follows:

• The higher number of applications reported in Q3 2020 vs. Q3 2019 (+22%) is driven also by the months marked by the sanitary crisis. Many consumers became unemployed/furloughed, or their work was suspended, causing the number of referrals to the Centre to grow in an attempt to seek and find, together with banks/NBFIs, a solution for the difficult times we are all going through. Thus, this year, ABDRC observed weeks with more than 100 applications filed by consumers, compared to a weekly average of 41 applications in 2019.
• The number of casefiles formed and resolved continues to decrease compared to Q3 2019 also in the aftermath of the Government Emergency Ordinance no. 37/2020. And this because this piece of legislation requires that the payment deferral applications should be filed directly to banks, and many consumers pursued this avenue to have payment of their instalments deferred/suspended. For this reason, we expect a further increase in the number of both applications and conciliation cases after the expiry of the maximum 9-month instalment payment suspension term.
• The increasing number of amicable (direct) settlements, having first referred the matter to ABDRC, could be again an effect of the Government Emergency Ordinance no. 37/2020, because some consumers filed their instalment payment suspension applications via ABDRC, considering that these did not involved any conciliation/negotiation between the bank and the consumer, but just enforcement as such of legal provisions. There are also cases where the bank accepts to enter conciliation, that is to say accepts the application, but after giving notice thereof to ABDRC, they call the consumer to attempt to reach an agreement directly:

1. this is an annoying situation because the conciliation procedures follows its course, a conciliator is randomly assigned and reviews the case and already undergoes all the procedures which imply giving formal pre-conciliation declarations, for then only to find out that the bank has already settled directly with the consumer. Our workflow can be impacted by such decisions.
2. we believe that the decision of the bank to pursue negotiations via ABDRC is the result of their previous determination that they cannot address that issue directly, and, implicitly, find necessary for the conciliator to step in.
3. our recommendation is for the banks to carefully tackle this matter and pursue a direct settlement with consumers only in straightforward cases with a solution easily visible for the both parties involved, and preferably before a casefile is formed in the Centre.

• During the first nine months of the year, several banks publicly voiced their support for the conciliation procedure, and urged their clients to approach ABDRC when they experience difficulties in repaying loans. Of these, BCR, BRD, Banca Transilvania, ING, Raiffeisen and CEC Bank have all made themselves available to negotiate with consumers via ABDRC.
• During the first half of the year, ABDRC saw all-time-high figures in terms of the benefits obtained by the consumers further to applications concerning loan agreements in RON and CHF. Thus, a consumer from Bucharest had a debt of RON 298,000 (approximately EUR 62,000) written off further to negotiations with the bank, with the mediation of ABDRC. In this particular case, the bank accepted to write off the entire debt that the consumer had still to pay. The same happened also in another social case of Oradea, where the bank wrote off CHF 51,930. A third case involving a significant amount was reported in June, when a bank wrote off CHF 43,000 and closed the loan for a family of Bucharest who was going through difficult financial times.
• One of the side effects of these record amounts was the increasing number of consumers who reject the solutions proposed by the ABDRC conciliators. Thus, while last year, the parties accepted the solution rendered by the ABDRC conciliators in 85% of the negotiations between consumers and banks, in Q3 2020, only 80% of the negotiations concluded with a reconciliation. The refusal of consumers to take up on an offer or solution was the main reason for which 65% of these negotiations failed. In fact, consumers have higher expectations from the banks’ offers, and sometimes err in comparing the benefits obtained by other consumers with their claims. This led to more than 50 negotiations failing in the first nine months of the year.
• During the first half of the year, ABDRC adjusted its work to the conditions demanded by authorities. Thus, more than 90% of the Centre’s work was moved online, and conciliators continued to remotely facilitate the negotiations between consumers and banks/NBFIs (via email and over the phone). Additionally, the IT tool (which went live in July 2018, and is used to manage the applications and casefiles directly on the ABDRC website) proved its efficiency during this time when the Centre was able to continue to smoothly mediate the relation between consumers and traders.
• The developments of the past years point to a constant reduction in the number of applications received with ABDRC, but refused by banks (no casefile formed): from 80% in 2016 down to 60% in 2017, down to 45% in 2018 and to only 31% in 2019. During the first nine months of the year, the share of applications which were unreasonably closed by banks dropped to 28%, and the recommendation that ABDRC makes to both banks and NBFIs is to strive to bring this percentage below 20% by the end of the year. This is an actionable objective, so much the more that there are already large banks the unreasonable rejection rate of which stays at approximately 10%.

• The first three quarters of 2020 saw the NBFIs rather unwilling to conciliate. Thus, of the 491 applications concerning NBFIs received in the first nine months of the year, only 22 were accepted for conciliation. Of these, the parties reached an agreement in only five cases. When it comes to NBFIs, more than 70% of the applications are unreasonably closed.

• Am important share of the closed applications have been rejected for valid reasons. For instance, since 2018 and to date, over 600 applications have concerned the Credit Office (of which, more than a third in the first nine months of this year alone). We would like to remind you that most of the applications concerning the Credit Office, the First House programmed, assigned loans have been rejected because, on a case-by-case basis, there is an applicable special piece of legislation which gives but limited, if no, actual room for negotiation.

• The share of cases concluded with a resolution further to negotiations (in which the parties accepted the solution proposed by the conciliator) is at approximately 80%, going down from the midyear 86%.

• As of Q1 2020, ABDRC can also address conciliation applications received from legal entities related to payment services and electronic money issuing. While six such applications have already been received by ABDRC, unfortunately these were not accepted by the recipient financial institutions. We believe that, as it had happened with natural persons back in 2016, conciliation for legal entities is on to a slow start. Nevertheless, the economic conditions left behind by the pandemics would render necessary, if not even critical, resolution of such cases outside the courts of law, with significantly lower financial and time efforts.

The WEBSITE www.csalb.ro makes available also for legal entities an online tool, which allows for faster and smoother submission of the conciliation applications. On the first page of the website, consumers are prompted to access this application by filling in an application. The documents entered in the registration form are uploaded into the app, and their processing time is approximately one hour. By email, the classic procedure, documents used to be processed in approximately one day. The online application was setup in observance of the principles of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

The Alternative Banking Dispute Resolution Centre (ABDRC) is an independent non-governmental, apolitical, and not-for-profit legal entity of public interest established under the Government Ordinance no. 38/2015 on alternative resolution of disputes between consumers and traders, which transposes at domestic level Directive 2013/11/EU on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) no. 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC.