30% of those who win a trial for revolving cards must return money to the bank, according to iAhorro


iAhorro has warned that 30% of users who win a trial for a revolving card still owe money to the bank at the time of filing the lawsuit, which must be returned to the entity in a single payment and within 20 days from that the sentence becomes firm.

As explained by the mortgage advisor, many of the users who decide to file a lawsuit are unaware that, if they still owe money to the bank at the time of filing it, they will have to return that capital to the bank.

This is because, if they win the trial, the contract is declared null, which means that the bank will have to return the interest and commissions overcharged. However, if they still owe part of the capital that the bank has lent them, customers must return this amount to the bank and they have a period of 20 business days from the date the judgment is final, and must also do so in a single payment.

“When filing a claim, citizens are unaware of this fact, despite the fact that it is always preferable to take the worst case scenario,” explained the Banqmi expert, iAhorro’s financial comparator, Antonio Gallardo.

The estimates of the lawyers consulted by iAhorro indicate that up to 30% of the users of these cards who sued the bank and won the lawsuit still had outstanding capital to return. “This is a high percentage, taking into account that, depending on the user’s profile, many of them will not be able to meet the final debt with the bank within the established period,” they warn from the company.

In the event that the client cannot return the money owed to the bank in a single payment due to lack of liquidity, the financial expert recommends seeking some temporary financing “that serves as a bridge” or resorting to “negotiation with the bank”, that on occasions it is willing to offer some type of payment solution to these clients so that they can return the outstanding capital despite having sued them.

“In the case of not repaying the debt, the bank has the option of requesting the seizure of the assets of the plaintiff client, who believed that the nullity of the contract meant not having to repay the borrowed money. Based on the declaration of nullity, the bank has the right to recover said debt through the established judicial channels”, iAhorro has warned.