The Financial Commissioner Pavlos Ioannou reinforces the criticisms of the Minister of Finance Konstantinos Petridis against bank manipulations in relation to the Estia plan. Mr. Petridis had argued, after the meeting of the Minister on Wednesday, that some of the applications rejected for inclusion in the Estia plan were met with substandard handling by banks (finally, with a new decision of the Council of Ministers, the relevant applications may be included in the plan) .
The Financial Commissioner is facing several complaints from borrowers whose loans have been restructured, with the fixing of a very low installment, which did not cover even the interest and the initial capital, as a result of which the loan is increasing. Due to the fact that the loan was formally restructured, it was considered serviced, as a result of which it could not be included in the Home Plan.
READ ALSO: It is difficult to protect loan guarantors
Following the decision of the Council of Ministers on Wednesday, it is estimated that around 200 to 250 applications will be reconsidered for joining Estia, which had been previously submitted but received a substandard handling, resulting in July 30, 2017 and June 20, 2019 to be considered serviced loans and to be rejected. Today, due to this practice, the homes of some borrowers are in danger of being sold (as the restructurings have proved ineffective), while in some other cases banks have taken legal action against them.
The Financial Commissioner, opening his papers to “F”, talks about fictitious restructurings that took place in the past, which created interest rates and inflated the amount of the problem loan. Mr. Ioannou stated that the Minister of Finance is absolutely right and took an effective position. As he said, if one studies the specific restructurings, one will realize the correctness of the minister's expressions. It should be noted that some of the complaints submitted to the Out-of-Court Financial Dispute Resolution Body are related to the criticisms made by the Minister. Also, complaints that the Agency has before it, on the one hand cause surprise and on the other hand cause concern.
Give whatever it is
The Commissioner quoted to “F” some of the complaints he received. Specifically, in a case of loan restructuring, the bank had set the borrower to pay an installment of € 10 for two months (ie € 10 per month). Then, from December 2017 to July 2018, the same borrower would have to pay a monthly installment of € 73. Then, from August 2018 until April 2031, the borrower's monthly installment increased to € 192, while the loan would be repaid in May 2031, with the payment of a final, installment of € 118.
Moreover, in another case of a loan that was restructured, the plan provided for the payment of a monthly installment of € 10 for two months. Then, from November 2017 until July 2018, the first borrower of the loan would have to pay an installment of € 162 per month. Subsequently, from August 2018 until July 2031 the amount of the monthly installment increased to € 506. In August 2031, the borrower would have to pay an installment of € 352.
According to the Financial Commissioner, he has a complaint according to which, in the context of the restructuring that was determined, another borrower from August 2018 had been asked to pay a monthly installment of € 10 for a period of 24 months. In September 2018, the specific borrower would have to pay an amount of € 160 thousand. Then, he would have to pay another 177 installments to € 1312 per month, while in July 2033 he would pay the bank one last installment, amounting to € 1010. Due to this restructuring, the loan increased further month by month due to interest rates.
As the Commissioner said, the above examples prove the fictitious restructurings that took place and which burdened the loans with additional interest. According to Mr. Ioannou, the problem should be addressed rationally because, as he said, “the whole situation reveals a serious administrative failure in the management of the project and the criteria that were set, despite the strategic importance of the whole effort.” Concluding, he noted that the Plan was excellent and could solve the problem of non-performing loans, if implemented fairly.