The institution’s response

After analysing the submitted request, the bank should process it promptly and efficiently, especially if:

  • The debtor has not provided all the necessary documentation, which must be asked for urgently.
  • The bank is aware of any circumstances that would prevent the application of the Code, in which case it must reject the request immediately.
  • All the documentation required has been submitted, in which case the bank must analyse the request and give a prompt response.

On the basis of the outcome of the analysis of the request together with all the documentation, the entity will conclude that:

  • The Code of Good Practice is not applicable, in which case it must justify its response, specifying the calculations made. The customer may submit any documentation it deems necessary for the request.
  • The Code of Good Practice is applicable, since the customer has proven he/she meets the exclusion threshold and the house price meets the established limit. The bank will prepare the restructuring plan within one month following the submission of the request together with all the documentation required.
  • The Fernández family submitted their request for debt restructuring. However, they did not prove that the mortgaged home was their main residence. Two days later, the bank sent them a communication indicating the need to provide the municipal certificate of registration in that home, with reference to the date of submission of the request and to the previous six months.

    The Gómez family had debt arising from two credit cards that they could not afford to pay, and they requested the restructuring of their debt under the Code of Good Practice. Their bank immediately denied the request on the grounds that the Code only applies to mortgage loans or credits secured by the debtor's main residence. It does not apply to credit card debt.

    The García family submitted a request for the Code of Good Practice. Because the family unit's income exceeded the limit of 3 times the annual Multipurpose Public Indicator of Income (IPREM) of 14 payments (€22,558.77 per year), the bank rejected the request, taking into account the following income:

    • €11,200 per year (14 payments of €800) of the mortgagor.
    • €5,600 per year (14 payments of €400) of his son, with a part-time job.
    • €22,400 per year (14 payments of €1,600) of his father, who was not a debtor but lived in the home with the family unit.

    The sum of this income is €39,200, effectively more than 3 times the annual IPREM of 14 payments (€22,558.77).

    The customer disagreed because the institution had taken into account the income of his father, who was not a debtor and was not part of his family unit, according to the definition given for the purposes of applying the Code. In his opinion, only his income and his son's income should have been taken into account, which come to a total of €16,800 per year (11,200 + 5,600), which does not exceed the limit of 3 times the annual IPREM of 14 payments.

    The institution confirmed its error and proceeded to study the request with the utmost urgency.

    The Rodríguez family submitted their request for the Code to be applied on 15 April, with all the documentation indicated by their bank. After its study, the bank confirmed that the debtor met the exclusion threshold and that all the requirements were met. On 12 May —less than one month after the request — it presented the debt restructuring plan.

Did you find this information useful?

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS