MILAN – Banks will be able to enter into direct possession of the mortgaged home from a borrower after the non-payment of 18 installments of the loan, not necessarily consecutively; this faculty, to be included in the contract between institutions and clients, will not be retroactive. These are the main remedies that the majority will propose in the Finance Committee, to the House as the Senate debated the issue of the transposition of the European Directive on the financing for the purchase of the house. Corrective, it is noted by the same majority, already screened by the government, ready to welcome them and then to make them definitive.
The controversy has mounted in recent days, when it emerged that the text under discussion in the Parliament (for a non-binding opinion of rooms) would open the possibility to enter into loan agreements a clause which – after non-payment of seven installments – the institute have come into possession the home to put an end to any claim for reimbursement to consumers, without going through the court for the normal judicial procedures. In doing so, he effectively expropriated property to sell quickly and cash in the amount of the sale, subject to the obligation to distribute the proceeds extras (compared to the amount of the debt) to the borrowers themselves.
A possibility, moreover, that could be spread to mortgages already concluded. Not surprisingly, the protests of the opposition and consumers was vehement. He was featured M5S, who paid with a barrage of sanctions by the Presidency of the Chamber: it is taken with the censorship ban from participating in the work in the House for three days for Members Alberti, Cirielli, De Rosa, Della Valle , Sorial, tripod stand, Manlio Di Stefano, Toninelli, Villarosa. The penalty rises to 6-day suspension for Bianchi Nicola, Brugnarotto and Della Valle.
The majority and the government corrects the shot today and the Democratic Party said that “he was ready to do it yesterday, if only jobs are not It was interrupted by the protests. ” In the draft opinion of the Commission, which must express a non-binding judgment but – in fact – previously shared by the government, we read that “the new legislation on the failure does not apply to contracts already in place, even in the case of subrogation, and offers at the inception of the biggest benefits to the city, forcing the bank to greater transparency “. It is pointed out that the clause on the possibility of selling the house to the bank to pay off the debt “is optional and the bank can not force citizens to sign it”, even if the point there are doubts about the real equality between the two parties (bank and consumer ) at the time of applying for a loan.
Salt as said the number of missed payments required because jerky expropriation: “And ‘considered to breach the non-payment of at least 18 payments”. Still, “in case of default the house may be offered for sale only with a specific act of disposal of the property by the consumer”. The choice of 18 installments, says the rapporteur in the House Giovanni Sanga, “was made on the basis of existing legislation, which allows for the possibility to suspend for 18 months the payment of installments on the first home loan.”
then there is the commitment to confirm the ban to the “agreement of forfeiture”, already banned by the civil code is that covenant under which the bank would have been able to take possession of the property to sell it and keep for themselves the entire proceeds . It disciplines, however, his version has already been laid, that of the “pact march”. In the document, the majority states that “the bank can retain that after the sale of the house just as it still had to and is obliged to return any surplus to the consumer.” Finally, “the transfer of immovable property to the bank, as a result of its default, results in termination of the debt even if the property value is lower than the outstanding debt.” And this, for Sanga, “is a guarantee of greater peace of mind for the debtor, as if I have a debt of 100, but the house is worth 80, with its passage to the bank consider repaid all my debt.”
Still, the draft opinion stresses that it “avoids the judicial procedure, resulting in cost savings for the citizen, and the depreciation of the real estate”. The question remains on the possibility of litigation in the event of non-shared by the parties to the declaration of default. Finally, it is stated that “the assessment of the house, then the infringement, must be performed by an independent expert appointed by the court” and no longer by the parties, while “the consumer must be assisted by an expert of his choice.” A Bank of Italy the “task of overseeing the whole process.”
The changes, made in the first place in the House, will be shared also in the Senate. The rapporteur herself in the Senate, Lucrezia Ricchiuti (Pd), the anticipated in the morning asking for more guarantees to consumers that continue to borrow placing your property as collateral. For the M5S continue to remain “palliative”. Meanwhile increased the alarm of Codacons, for which the rule would have risked triggering a housing crisis in all Italian municipalities, leaving thousands of people homeless: “We asked the President of the Association of Italian Municipalities, Piero Fassino, a urgent meeting to address the issue of the consequences for municipalities related to the transposition of the EU Directive – says the president, Carlo Rienzi -. the ways in which the Government intends to introduce the norm, in fact, threaten to unleash a new housing crisis, especially in those areas where the housing problem is most felt. We therefore believe that the ANCI must take a clear position in this respect, to protect the municipalities and the citizens. “
No comments:
Post a Comment