Real Estate Law
Since it became an obligation to eliminate the IRPH as a benchmark for mortgages, several solutions were offered to individuals to modify your mortgage and end up changing the index by one transparent and clear as, for example, the EURIBOR. In most cases, or own the mortgage writing envisaged that it would change display for the EURIBOR plus a certain differential or, directly, this was the result of negotiations with the Bank when he played to make the change.
But despite everything, go back to the order EHA / 2899 / 2011, from 28 October to demonstrate that you removed the IRPH to consider it non-transparent benchmarking index and without guarantees for individuals. And not only there were irregularities time offer customers this index in the Constitution of mortgage loans, they also occur in the management of change that has been made. There are several cases of failure to observe the replacement index which appeared in writing when it was most beneficial to the client, convert a mortgage variable rate loan to a fixed rate loan, or even keep last IRPH that had mortgage instead of the replacement rate to be, by far, more beneficial to the consumer.
The difference between Euribor and IRPH is not less. On a mortgage of €150,000 to 25 years, with a differential of 0,50%, currently you can make a difference of €1,650 per year.
These types of loans are traded in his day explaining to customers that was more stable than the Euribor interest rate, but has been accredited the ability of handling of the index which had banks and savings banks. And in this context there are already many sentences that nullify the IRPH of mortgages as abusive by the lack of transparency that was part of the entities by not offering types more beneficial as the Euribor or contrary to good faith contractual causing an imbalance between the rights and obligations of the two parties involved.
If you have a mortgage IRPH index patients have open one-way to legally request the invalidity of the clause that includes this index. A way with a line of rulings favorable to the claim that it begins to be very consistent and, even, it expects to return the amount paid over since the establishment of the loan.