Supported byOwner's Engineer
Clarion Energy banner

Left without an apartment due to debt, and the bank is still demanding

Supported byspot_img

When borrowing money, we also assume the responsibility to return the debt with the associated interest. However, circumstances do not always turn out as we planned, which was the case with a woman from Jagodina, to whom the bank tried to collect a debt through execution, and not a small amount, the details of which we learned from the consumer association “Effectiva”.

She took a loan from the bank in the amount of 24,266 euros in 2013, and as she admits, she paid it back, not always regularly: “but I paid a certain amount of money to the bank”.

Due to the delay in debt repayment, the bank sold the debtor’s apartment for 22,800 euros. Then she tried to forcefully collect another 12,000 euros from the debtor, according to “Effectiva”, with the help of which the woman from Jagodina wrote a complaint to the Court, which, among other things, states:

Supported by

“I received a notification from the bank that, in the name of securing a loan, my apartment of 62 square meters in Jagodina was sold for the amount of 22,800 euros. Even if I didn’t pay anything, and I did, the difference between the balance of the debt on the day of signing the contract and the price at which the apartment was sold is 1,500 euros. I am aware of the default interest, but I am sure that at least it was canceled by my previous payments. However, the proposal for execution states that the debt as of August 16, 2022, amounts to 1,398,942.46 dinars, which according to the middle exchange rate of the NBS is 11,923 euros.”

As we learn from the complaint submitted to the Basic Court in Jagodina, the bank arrived at this figure by applying illegal default interest, which it applied from the day the loan was contracted, in the amount of 0.1 percent per day.

In addition, the loan was disbursed at the purchase price and charged at the middle exchange rate, in addition, loan processing costs and a premium for NKOSK were illegally charged.”

The court accepted the complaint, and the debtor will, as stated by “Effectiva”, launch a counter-claim to determine the illegal provisions of the contract, Politika writes.

Supported by

RELATED ARTICLES

Supported byClarion Energy
spot_img
Serbia Energy News
error: Content is protected !!