- LeocriciaLeocricia has represented English-speaking clients in Gran Canaria since 1990. Now with over 20 years experience , she runs a multi-lingual, multi-disciplinary team of lawyers with offices in Las Palmas and Maspalomas. Services include Real Estate law, Contract Law, Inheritances, Debt Recovery, Medical Negligence and Tax & Fiscal Support to businesses.
A judgment by the Spanish Supreme Court, of the 25th of November, 2015, has invalidated as ‘usurious’ a contract for ‘revolving credit’ offered by a finance company that provided access to ‘Fast Loans’ with interest rates up to 24.6% APR (Annual Percentage Rate).
The appellant before the Supreme Court pleaded that their rights under the first paragraph of art. 1 of the Repression of Usury Act 1908 ( still in force) had been violated, The law states: “Any loan agreement that stipulates a significantly higher interest rate than normal and manifestly disproportionate to the specific circumstances or with conditions that render the contract unfair, where there is reason to believe that such an agreement has been accepted by the borrower as a result of being in a desperate situation,through their inexperience or their limited mental faculties.
Although the particular case under appeal was not truly a case involving a loan , but rather an example of a consumer credit that could have been arranged over the phone, such that loans are transferred to the borrower’s bank account or by using a card issued by the financial institution, the law was held to apply and, in particular, Article 1 since Article 9 states : ” the provisions of this Act shall apply to an operation substantially equivalent to a loan of money , whatever form the contract may take, and the guarantee of compliance upon which basis the loan has been offered.
The flexibility of the rules contained in the Repression of Usury Act 1908 has allowed the jurisprudence in this area to adapt the application of that law to new and diverse social and economic circumstances. In the case under appeal , those rules had to be applied to a credit transaction which , by by it’s nature , can be considered to lie within the ambit of consumer credit.
The Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court in its judgment of 25th November 2015 considered that the judgment appealed from the lower court infringed Article 1 of the Law of Repression of Usury in that the credit agreement must be considered usurious , as were present the two mentioned legal requirements.
A) The interest rate agreed was above the normal price of money. The interest rate stipulated in the agreement was in the order of 24.6% APR. Since pursuant to Article 315, second paragraph, of the Commercial Code “any payments to be made by the borrower shall be considered when calculating the interest rate”, the percentage to be taken into consideration in determining whether the interest rate is significantly higher than the normal cost of money is not the nominal rate , but rather the annual percentage rate (APR) , which is calculated taking into account any payments that the borrower has to make to the lender in respect of the loan, according to legally predetermined standards .
This extreme interpretation is essential (but not sufficient by itself) for the clause which establishes the rate of interest to be considered transparent , because not only does it permit a more clear understanding of the burden that the credit loan supposes to the borrower or creditor , but it also enables a more reliable comparison with loans offered by the competition.
The interest rate with which the comparison is to be made is that “normal for money ” . It is not , therefore, compared with the ‘legal’ interest rate , but with that interest rate that is “normal or usual, taking into account the circumstances of the case and the freedom existing in such matters ‘ interest (Case no. 869/2001 of 2nd October) . To establish what is considered “normal interest rates” reference may be made to statistics published by the Bank of Spain , and taking as a basis point the monthly information provided by credit institutions on the interest rates that are applied to various forms of lending (loans and personal loans up to one year and up to three years, mortgages with a term more than three years, current accounts, savings accounts, hire-purchase agreements, etc. ) .
That obligation held by the financial entities to provide information on the interest rates they charge has its origins in Article 5.1 of the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank ( ECB), which details the obligation of the latter, assisted by the national central banks , to collect information through statistical operators. To this end , the ECB adopted Regulation (EC ) No 63/2002 of 20 December 2001 on statistics relating to interest rates applied by monetary financial institutions to deposits and loans vis households and non-financial companies; and thereafter, the Bank of Spain , through its Circular 4/2002 of 25 June, provided the mandatory content of the Regulation, in order to obtain the information required from the credit institutions.
In the case under appeal , the judgment being reviewed had found as proven fact that the interest rate of 24.6 % APR – barely over double the normal average interest rate on consumer credit operations at the time when the contract was concluded – could not be criticized as excessive. However, the question is not whether or not it is excessive, but rather if it is ” significantly higher than the normal cost of money and manifestly disproportionate to the circumstances of the case ” and the 1st Chamber of the Supreme Court considered that a difference of this magnitude between the APR applied to this particular loan and the average interest rate on consumer loans on the date on which it was created, made it possible to consider that the interest should be stipulated as ” significantly higher than the normal cost of money.”
B ) So that the loan could be considered usury it is necessary that, besides being significantly higher than the normal cost of money, the stipulated interest must be “grossly disproportionate when the circumstances of the case are taken into consideration .”
As a matter of logic, since no test exists to determine that which is considered ‘normal’ it falls to be alleged and proven that there were exceptional circumstances that justified the ‘grossly disproportionate rate of interest’. The financial institution that granted the “revolving” loan did not justify the exceptional circumstances that explain the provision of a significantly higher interest than a standard loan in consumer credit.
Generally, the exceptional circumstances which may justify an abnormally high interest rate are related to the risk of the operation. When the borrower plans to use the loan for a particularly lucrative, but high risk, operation, it is justified that the person who finances it will , as well as having to run the risk, also benefit from the high profits expected by fixing the interest rate significantly higher than normal.
Consequences Of A Finding That Consumer Credit Has Is Usurious
The consequences of a finding that an offer of credit is usurious are as follows according to the judgment of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court:
- The usurious “revolving” credit arrangement granted by the Bank entails that the contract is invalid and has been described by the 1st Chamber of TS as “total, absolute and complete”, and permits of no acceptance whatsoever because it is fatally irreparable , nor may the contract be susceptible to prescription, as a result of expiry of a long period of time, for example. “( STS no. 539/2009 , of July 14, 2009).
- The consequences of such invalidity are those laid down in Article 3 of the Law of Repression of Usury , that is, the borrower is obliged to return only the amount received. In the case under appeal , the defendant (lender) had actually paid the applicant (the borrower) a higher amount than he had received , so the complaint was completely dismissed. The lack of a prepared counterclaim prevented the application of the second part of the provision, according to which , if the borrower had only paid back part of the loan received including principal and interest due , the lender would have to return to the borrower any amount which exceeds the borrowed capital .
- As the defendant had paid an amount greater than that loaned to the applicant, it was not necessary to proceed to the return of interest on arrears, which meant it was unnecessary for the court to have to rule on the second ground of appeal , which raised a question that has already been settled by the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court ( SSTS no. 265/2015 , of April 22 , and 469/2015 , of September 8 ). Moreover, the high court understood that such irresponsible lending practices, providing easy access to consumer loans, without properly studying guarantees provided by the borrower, but at much higher interest rates than normal in order to compensate for late payments, results in those who regularly meet their repayment obligations have to carry the burden for those who are unable to, and this cannot be protected by law”.
Below is a list of recent reviews received from our clients, obtained via the Wufoo client survey platform:
- David Stack, Lliria, SpainThursday, June 21, 2018Francisca was extremely helpful. She made the whole process easy to understand. I would definitely recommend her service to friends.
- Susanna Buckley, United KingdomWednesday, June 20, 2018Lidia is very approachable and friendly and I never felt that anything was a problem.
She was also very sympathetic to my situation (my mother had passed away) and supportive. As soon as she was c...ontracted, she acted quickly to sort things out so that I could return home to the UK as soon as possible.
She always tried her best to answer any questions very quickly and promptly and matters proceeded without too much worry on my part.
- Wendy Dickson, MarbellaTuesday, June 19, 2018It was all done very quick. Very good value for money. How easy it all was to communicate via email.
- Peter & Anita Bradshaw, Leeds, EnglandMonday, June 18, 2018We could not be more happy with the service we received from Jaime.
He responded immediately to our enquiry and it was clear from the outset that he fully understood our position. It was vital tha...t Jaime acted quickly in this matter and he did so in a highly professional and competent manner, providing us with clear and concise updates throughout.
We found Jaime to be very polite and approachable and we believe his fees to be very reasonable. We would genuinely not hesitate to recommend his services.
Before contacting Jaime, our previous experiences of Spanish Lawyers had been appalling - in fact we needed Jaime's help to resolve issues which previous Lawyers had created. Our only regret is not finding Jaime sooner!
Thanks so much for all your help Jaime.
- Jan Neate, NerjaWednesday, May 30, 2018Very satisfied with the service provided by Beatriz. She extremely helpful and spoke more or less fluent English. We would definitely recommend her to friends.
- Serena Bhatia, LondonWednesday, May 30, 2018Anna has been nothing but helpful in providing information, sound advice and genuine care, My fiancé and I adore her! She is timely, professional and extremely knowledgeable about world wide law.
- Ronald Peter Downs, SpainTuesday, May 29, 2018A lady staff member took us under her wing and managed to sort out my residency. Overall no complaints.
- Tracey and Mike Iliffe Bradley, Colchester, United KingdomTuesday, May 29, 2018From our very first contact through to the end of our purchase, Rosa surpassed all expectations.
She was helpful, efficient, always quick to return our communications and a pleasure to deal with. ...We have already recommended her services to a friend.
- Cheryl, SevilleMonday, May 28, 2018Miguel was helpful and kind. We will use his service in the future.
- Ken & Margaret, TorreviejaThursday, May 24, 2018Pedro was extremely helpful, he couldn't have done more. We would definitely recommend his services to friends.
- Rl, AlicanteThursday, May 24, 2018Felt very comfortable at all times. Nothing was too much. Understood everything mentioned in our meeting. Very reasonable rate, money wise.
- KL, Valencia, SpainWednesday, May 23, 2018Inma is easy to talk to, is prompt in replying to emails, is helpful and above all achieved the solution I wanted.
- MF, LanzaroteMonday, May 21, 2018My lawyer Cristina was extremely understanding , friendly and reassuring. With Cristina on my side, it gave me confidence to continue.
- RA, ParisFriday, May 18, 2018The service I needed wasn't complex, just verification of documents, but the service was rapid, friendly and exactly what I needed.My lawyer Julia was bilingual.
- Sham Naib, Callao Salvaje, TenerifeFriday, May 18, 2018My lawyer Oliver was very helpful, always happy to assist. He professionally checked the law before dispensing advice.
- Smith, FranceFriday, May 18, 2018Caroline is bilingual and was very helpful throughout. There is nothing I would suggest to improve. I was very happy with the service and would definitely recommend to friends.
- SJ Thiele,Tuesday, May 15, 2018Inma was very helpful and we were very satisfied with the service overall. We would definitely recommend her services to friends.
- John Stecher, EnglandTuesday, May 15, 2018Very satisfied with the service received. OUr lawyer was very easy and straightforward to deal with. Would definitely recommend to friends.
- Cian O'Grady, IrelandTuesday, May 15, 2018We bought a property in spain and Lidia assisted us through the buying process.
She was very professional and reassured us throughout the process.Her english was very good and we felt that we got ...good value for our money.
- PJU, Torun, PolandWednesday, May 09, 2018Béatriz responded quickly to any queries I raised, with easily comprehensible answers.
Her fee was very reasonable and she proved to be a very personable and approachable person when we finally m...et at the Notary.
- Barry Gracey, Melbourne, AustraliaMonday, May 07, 2018I found Jaime helpful and responded promptly to my emails. I was very happy with the service provided and if needed would use him in the future
- Geraldine King, IrelandMonday, May 07, 2018I was extremely happy with Pedro,and Ana. They were honest,and answered my queries promptly.
Pedro had to evict my squatter tenants, and then organised an estate agent to sell my apt. This agent un...dertook renovating the apt, and got me a good price.
Pedro and his brilliant co-worker Ana finalised the sale and I received the money into my account, without me ever setting a foot in Spain.(Power of attorney).
I will be recommending Pedro to friends, who are going to sell their apartment in Torrevieja. I highly recommend him.
- Joy Ellis, SanxenxoTuesday, May 01, 2018Sabela was extremely professional in her dealings with us, very patient and understanding of the situation and gave very good advice and a good solution to our problem.
We feel very confident that... she has dealt with the complaint against a third party and know that if we need any further assistance in this matter she will be more than able to resolve it for us.
She responded immediately to our contact and arranged a meeting on site to enable us to explain fully the problem we had.
- Caroline R, BarcelonaTuesday, April 24, 2018Miguel has been great!
His English is excellent, he explains everything clearly, emails when he says he will, and is very efficient in the service he provides.
I'd definitely recommend him to ...friends.
- George Salib, LondonMonday, April 23, 2018Jose Antonio was very professional and has assisted me in every step of the purchase of my flat in Alicante.
He also assisted me by advising of the most suitable area according to my needs. His com...mitment and dedication is excellent.
Jose Antonio was very easy to approach and happy to help in any way he can.
I will definitely recommend him to my family and friends.
- Liezl Pulido, PhilippinesMonday, April 23, 2018Rosa never stopped working very hard, she went way above what she needed to do...she never gave up on me and always did more than I thought anyone would.
I am so blessed I got Rosa to help me I co...uldn't have gotten a better lawyer she's the best.
Thank you Rosa from the bottom of my heart you are a wonderful person, I am so grateful to you.
- KJB, United KingdomFriday, April 20, 2018Francisco was professional and efficient. Very good value for money.
- Duncan Martin, Wolverhampton, EnglandFriday, April 20, 2018Lidia, was extremely helpful and patient throughout the process.
She was very attentive and responsive and explained everything in detail.
Lidia represents excellent value for money and the so...lutions she recommended were very beneficial, especially as you hear and read about a lot of horror stories on the web.
Lidia was the best legal representative i have employed and i will always use her where Spanish legal affairs are concerned.
- Julie Smith, TorrellanoFriday, April 20, 2018I can't compliment my solicitor enough.
From our initial meeting right through to my ultimate divorce (with no unpleasant surprises the entire duration of the entire process), he immediately respo...nded to my many enquiries, always had mine and my daughter's best interests at the forefront of any considerations and was well worth every penny of his extremely reasonable fee.
Excellent value for money, totally approachable and very professional and understanding. I highly recommend him and will continue to retain his services for other matters in the future.
- SH, EnglandFriday, April 20, 2018Very satisfied with the service provided. Miguel was approachable and prompt in replying.