I hereby make a complaint, on behalf of our partners, as Defence Act provides fo

r the Consumers and Users and consistent rules, by the facts presented to: CUSTO
MER SERVICE POINT POST BBVA 1598 28080 MADRID D / Ms. for service in, armed with
best appropriate ID to: DECLARE: First: That on, D / Ms. coverage contract inte
rest rate your lender called been contacted by the entity to provide that produc
t. signed one, after, of age, resident appeared before the service and
BACKGROUND OF THE CLAIM:
First: There is deception on the part of the entity in the recruitment of this p
roduct, since in the same day of purchase of the product, the research service o
f BBVA, was driving a lowered forecast Euribor "imminent" and "significant." If
the intention is to ensure product against Euribor rises, one might think that t
here is willful misconduct of the entity, as it was expected that the Euribor wa
s not going to rise. It seems more a product to make the entity that the custome
r pays a high interest and can not benefit from the tubes that estimated. Second
: There is a European directive called MiFID that aims to protect small investor
s by requiring the implementation of a customer classification to entities using
a questionnaire. This classification, for small investors, gives the name of re
tail investors and requires an entity to carry out a suitability test to determi
ne the ability of the investor and the contracting products caused by this claim
. In no time you will make even the classification as a retailer, nor the suitab
ility test prior to the hiring of this product.
Third: The same directive, transposed into Spanish law by Law 47/2007 and Royal
Decree 217/2008, said to be included in the explanation of the risks,
related to the product type including an explanation of the risk of loss and pri
ce volatility of the financial instrument and any limitations on market that can
be negotiated. Not stated an explanation of the risks associated with derivativ
es that are used in the product, or an estimate of potential losses under differ
ent scenarios or market constraints are negotiated, or that are traded market. F
ourth: In the Royal Decree 217/2008 mentions the obligation to report the orders
given by clients in a number of concepts, something that has been violated in s
elling this product because of the information received does not appear time of
execution, or the identification of the performance or the price of the transact
ion. Fifth, the art. 79 bis of Law 24/1988 has been violated in paragraph 79 bis
.2 because advertising is not clear or fair or clearly explain the risks in case
of redemption or total cancellation. The retail consumer does not know the deri
vatives market to know the cost can reach these cancellations. Sixth: The Art. 7
9 bis of Law 24/1988 has been violated in paragraph 79 bis.3 since it was mislea
ding to refer to commercial product under the name "safe" when it is a byproduct
. There is also a complete absence of information on order execution centers and
the costs and associated costs so that they can understand the nature and risks
of the investment service and the specific type of financial instrument that is
offered may therefore take investment decisions knowingly. In many cases they a
re even talked about "zero cost" in the case of cancellation. Seventh: The numbe
r one eighth of the order of December 12, 1989 has also been breached by failing
to report the entity in the settlements that practiced by the cancellation of t
his product or interest rate or market where it has negotiated the instrument ,
date and time of execution, or the formula used for calculating the debt. Eighth
, the membership contract signed, contains a general clause, in which the client
claims to have requested this product coverage. This clause, which reads in gen
eral, assumes that all contracts of adhesion of this type have been asked by cus
tomers when dealing with a new product at the same time complex and not advertis
ed in the windows of branches. This is a complex product, not at all known for s
mall savers, and that all the client requested. There were repeated calls and co
ntacts by the institution to hire this product. Ninth: According to Article 82.1
of Royal Decree 1 / 2007, be considered abusive,€all those not expressly conse
nted, and that made against the requirement of good faith, causing injury to con
sumers and users. It has been sold under the name of "safe" when it is a byprodu
ct. Consumers know retail insurance operation, which in no case is similar to th
e risks of a derivative. Has not been informed of the possible cancellation fee
or make partial repayments, etc. The information in the brochures of the product
is insufficient.
The contracts contain clauses stating that customers hire products but nothing i
s said about the risks of such products. (See clauses 1 and 2 of
contracts) contracts contain clauses stating that the contract be resolved in th
e process advance to the corresponding settlement is positive or negative depend
ing on the conditions in the market interest rates. This paragraph is not adequa
te or sufficiently explains the possible liquidation to a retail client knows th
e risk is contracting. Does not even appear the formula of calculating the settl
ement.
For all these reasons, we ask: First, declare the contract void, return the sums
contributed by the parties, by mistake with the consent and deception, as provi
ded in Civil Code Article 1265, 1266 and 1301 and that the facts stated above, t
he client was not well informed about the characteristics and risks of the produ
ct he hired. Second: That the alternative, be allowed to terminate the contract
without cost to the claimant, due to serious deficiencies.
Signed: