CARRP – Late call to MEPs in the ECON Committee

Consumer organizations throughout Europe are waiting with great expectation on the coming vote in the ECON committee on the credit agreements relating to residential property (CARRP). Scandinavian Consumer Organizations, such as the Norwegian Consumer Council is no exception.

We have joint our efforts and advocated on a wide range of topics earlier in fruitful dialog with several EU bodies, especially the rapporteur, shadow rapporteurs and designated Members of the European Parliament.

Even in these late stages we urge all members of the ECON committee in the European Parliament to support and contribute to improved consumer conditions and consumer aspects for the directive.

Focus on consumer interests must be in the midpoint when voting on Compromise E on Article 5(1). The final provision must include an independent professional responsibility to banks and intermediates to act in the best interests of their consumer client. It is not possible to combine consumer interests and at the same time vote in favour of amendments 353, 354, 355 and 358 to this article. We urge you to vote against them and vote in favour of amendment 73.

We strongly urge each MEP in ECON to support a conditional documentable end-user benefit as a criterion for sales of bundled product packages. The amendment 490, debated as Compromise H concerning Article 8a1, gives a viable solution.

It is with upmost importance to have consumer interest in mind also when voting on compromised amendment on Article 17 (Compromise Q). The outcome concerning standards of advisory services must commit providers to conduct credit and suitability assessment prior to his or hers recommendation. The outcome must also commit the providers to act in the best interests of the consumer when recommending credit agreements.

Responsible Banks and providers would have no problems with such provisions . It would not require alteration of their business conduct as their market behaviour is already in alignment to such a provision. On the other hand less responsible providers would be forced to alternate their practice.

To assure proper correction of unwanted market behaviour we acknowledge that sanctions must be dealt with. Such sanctions should be provided in Compromise E on Article 5(1) and include

“Member States shall ensure that in case of non compliance with these requirements, provisions are set to allow for compulsory adjustment of the contract in the interest of the affected consumer and at no charge for him or, at the choice of consumer, the ability to cancel the contract in a way that leaves no damages to him”

Finally we also urge you to vote in favour of amendment 635 concerning the right to use terms such as “advice”, “advisor”, «independent advice» or «independent advisor». We urge you to take a stand together with the consumer organizations on this issue when voting on Article 17 (Compromise Q). Doing so will contribute to more transparent and sincere presentation of roles where providers meets consumers.

Stikkord: Alfredo Pallone, Anne E. Jensen, Antolin Sanchez, Antolin Sanchez Presedo, Arlene McCarthy, Carl Haglund, CARP, CARRP, credit agreements relating to residential property, Dan Jørgensen, ECON, Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee, Emilie Turunen, European Parliament, Eva Joly, Gunnar Hökmark, IMCO, Internal Markets and Consumer Protection Committee, Liem Hoang Ngoc, Markus Ferber, Mortgage Directive, Olle Ludvigsson, Olle Schmidt, Presedo, Robert Goebbels, Sampo Terho, Sanchez Presedo, Sari Essayah, Sharon Bowles, Sirpa Pietikäinen, Sven Giegold, Vicky Ford