More Protection against Dubious Loan Offers: Ministry Blocks

Credit was rejected because the credit rating is insufficient or negative features in the SCHUFA simply make lending by the house bank impossible. But the Internet helps, because here are numerous providers of so-called schufa-free loans and promise even in the most difficult cases, quick and straightforward help, words that quickly entice anyone who is looking for such a loan to such To take loan offer. However, this often ends in a financial disaster. After all, these loan offers usually lead to higher financial burdens – and thus straight into the debt spiral.

Rip-off on credit without Schufa Offers: Legislators in duty?

Rip-off on credit without Schufa Offers: Legislators in duty?

A circumstance that consumer advocates absolutely want to stop and see first and foremost the legislature in the obligation. Thus, according to the opinion of numerous consumer protection associations, it is above all the legislator’s duty to put a stop to dubious business models in the banking industry outside the traditional banking business by protecting the consumer.

But anyone who thinks that such a demand for strengthening consumer rights in the banking sector will open doors to the relevant institutions is wrong. Thus, the competent Ministry of Consumer Protection reacts with somewhat incomprehensible restraint against the demand from the consumer protection associations. The Minister in charge, Katarina Barley, said that, in her view, the current legislation provides sufficient protection for consumers against dubious credit offers.

Actually hardly comprehensible, because again and again cases appear, because rogue loan providers rip off numerous trusting consumers in search of a schufa-free loan with ultimately fraudulent methods. Be it in the form that simply advance payment fraud is committed or the supposedly already approved credit ultimately turns out not as such, but as an element of a so-called financial restructuring. Which means in plain language that the loan does not even end up with the borrower. Equally popular, the condition is to take out insurance that protects the allegedly approved loan. However, the result usually looks like that there is no credit, but the insurance costs have to be paid, because the deadline for revocation has started by a clever delay. It is precisely at these points that consumer advocates see a need for improvement when it comes to being able to defend against payment already made to providers of such doubtful credit offers.

Mininsterium for consumer protection sees no need for action

Mininsterium for consumer protection sees no need for action

From the point of view of the consumer advocates, the legislator could already considerably improve the legal scope of action against fraudulent credit intermediaries even small corrections. As an example, the reimbursement of expenses could be canceled, which allows the intermediary of such loans, in addition to remuneration and consulting fees to charge further expenses.

Dorothea Mohn, Head of Financial Market at the Verbraucherzentrale-Bundesverband. “Only those credit intermediaries should be able to demand payments that really enabled lending.” But that encounters the Federal Consumers’ Ministry on a fairly clear rejection and also provides an equivalent from their point of view explanation. Providers of such loans or loans without Schufa offers could in principle require a reimbursement of expenses incurred in connection with the lending – even if the loan agreement does not materialize. Finally, the customer could also have changed. At the same time, according to the ministry, the consumer would have extensive rights if the provider has granted a credit without a credit check.