Here we go again. The banks of the ‘highest profits ever’ are striking back by unilaterally changing their current account conditions with motives that often seem more specious than justified. They do so on the grounds of the need to rebalance the economic relationship with customers, without taking into account, however, that the 1,364 billion sight deposits on current accounts at the end of April – remunerated at 0.21% to households and 0.62% to businesses – continue to produce 39 billion annually in financial margin: 13 billion more than in June 2022 (end of negative rates) and 15 billion more than in December 2007 (before the crisis).
This time the case of Bper is brought to our attention, a credit institution that on this front in recent years had also been among the most careful not to overburden its customers with unidirectional, always upward changes. In a communication dated 28 March, the Emilia-based bank informed account holders that it would be increasing the account-keeping fees charged to them as of 1 July. The reasons point to two exogenous factors that, for the bank, would have led to a persistently unfavourable impact on the deposit and current account business. The first event cited is the cancellation of the remuneration applied from 20 September 2023 to the compulsory reserve set up by banks with the Bank of Italy. The second reason given is the capital strengthening required – with reference to the operational risks attributable to current accounts in proportion to their share of fees only – by the amendments made by EU Regulation 2024/1623 of 31 May 2024.
It would appear to be inadequate justification for passing on to account holders charges imposed by the ECB on individual banks. In the same way, the declared aim of rebalancing contractual conditions seems to disregard the current higher margins on rates and charges compared to the original ones, which in the past were worsened by referring to justified reasons that have since disappeared (e.g. negative rates).
Since these are events that, as recalled by Bper, affect the entire banking system, in order to avert the risk of a widespread proliferation of unilateral emulative changes by other banks, it would be appropriate for the Bank of Italy to intervene promptly. It should be recalled, in fact, that banks may resort to Article 118 of the Consolidated Banking Act to vary conditions, but only if there is a justified reason and not a mere pretext. And that the current account customer (especially if a weak non-professional contracting party) is deserving of a substantial surplus of protection in order to restore a condition of parity between the contracting parties, also with regard to the configurability of an obligation for the banks to amend in melius the contractual terms and conditions, following changes in market scenarios of an opposite sign to those that had justified the variation in peius. If this were not the case, the unilateral amendments pursuant to Article 118 TUB would deviate from their function.
It would therefore seem necessary: a) to impose on banks the obligation to publish, in the transparency area of the website, all unilateral amendments communicated to customers pursuant to Article 118 TUB, in order to be able to assess the correctness of the intermediary’s post-contractual conduct; b) to impose the bank’s obligation to make the formal ameliorative amendment when the justified reason given for the previous, detrimental amendment ceases to exist, also providing that the latter shall be ineffective as soon as the contrary occurs.