Bausparkassen sometimes demand annual fees from their customers during the savings phase - but that has now come to an end. The Federal Court of Justice can see no reason for the collection or concrete consideration. They must not be paid for administrative work in this way.
A building society is not allowed to charge an annual fee for the building society contract. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in Karlsruhe ruled on Tuesday that a corresponding clause puts customers at an unreasonable disadvantage and is therefore ineffective. Otherwise administrative costs would be passed on to customers, which the building society would have to bear itself. (Az. XI ZR 551/21)
Specifically, it was a lawsuit by the Federal Association of Consumer Organizations against BHW Bausparkasse because it charges its customers twelve euros per account each year during the savings phase. However, the BGH decision can affect numerous other contracts. According to private building societies, there are around 24 million building society contracts in Germany as of the end of 2021.
As early as 2017, the BGH had banned fees in the loan phase of a home savings contract. Now it was all about the savings phase. Home savings contracts consist of two sections: the savings phase, in which capital is saved, and the subsequent loan phase. As soon as a certain minimum amount has been saved and the other requirements have been met, the contract is ready for allocation. The customer is then entitled to a loan on previously agreed terms.
The BGH now explained that the main service of a building society in the savings phase consists in paying interest on the capital saved and in giving the customer a claim to a loan - not from administrative activities. These are just advance payments.
The BGH further justified the judgment by charging an annual fee. It is also not justified by advantages for the savers: they have to accept in the savings phase that the building society pays comparatively low interest on their deposits. They would also have to pay a fee when signing the contract.
The BGH also saw no contribution in the fee that would guarantee the functionality of the home savings system, which would outweigh the disadvantages for the individual saver - this is how the home savings bank had argued in court. The judges of the eleventh civil senate thus rejected the building society's appeal against a previous judgment.
