Many building societies have introduced or increased annual account fees in recent years. The Federal Court of Justice has ruled that such fees are inadmissible in the savings phase.
The most important thing in brief:
- Many building societies charge account fees for building savings contracts in the savings phase. The Federal Court of Justice ruled in a case involving the BHW building society that this was unlawful.
- Many building societies object to the ruling also being applicable to their tariffs. But they often don't get away with it in court. Therefore, further lawsuits are ongoing.
- You can request a refund. This sample letter will help you.
Flat rate service fee and annual account fee not permitted
The BHW building society may not charge an annual fee for managing building savings accounts during the savings phase. This was decided by the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in its judgment of November 15, 2022 (ref. November 2021 (ref. 3 U 39/21).
Annual fees from various building societies illegal
In its tariff conditions, the BHW building society charged an annual fee of 12 euros for each building savings account. The building society justified the fee by saying that it had to control the building society collective and continually evaluate the individual building society contracts in order to give customers the legal right to a building society loan. According to the BGH, the clause used was unlawful.
Other building societies have used similar clauses, the wording of which differs sometimes more or less from the clause of the BHW building society.
- Following a lawsuit filed by the Federal Association of Consumer Organizations against LBS Südwest (today LBS Landesbausparkasse Süd), the Regional Court and the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart decided that an “annual fee (annual fee)” of 9, 15 or 18 euros was ineffective in various tariff variants (OLG Stuttgart, judgment). dated March 28, 2024, Ref. 2 U 207/22). The court did not allow an appeal to the BGH.
- The LG Munich I also decided in the case of an “annual fee” of the LBS Bayerische Landesbausparkasse (today LBS Landesbausparkasse Süd) that the disputed clause charging an annual fee was ineffective. However, the court also decided that a differently worded clause regarding an annual salary was permissible if the wording of the clause justified “the creation of the right to a low-interest building savings loan from the allotment pool”. A decision is now pending from the Munich Higher Regional Court (LG Munich I, Az 22 O 877/23, OLG Az. 5 U 4845/23).
- Following a lawsuit brought by the Baden-Württemberg consumer advice center, the Heilbronn regional court also decided against the Schwäbisch Hall building society that a “contractual fee” is also inadmissible for Riester building savings contracts (Heilbronn Regional Court, judgment of April 25, 2024, AZ Rt 6 O 179/23, now pending on OLG Stuttgart under number 2 U 72/24).
- In another lawsuit against the Schwäbisch Hall building society, the Heilbronn regional court decided that an “annual fee” of 36 euros for obtaining and maintaining the right to receive a building society loan is inadmissible (judgment of February 22, 2024; Ref.: Rt 6 O 97 /23). The building society has appealed against this judgment, so that the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court will now decide (OLG Stuttgart, Az, 2 U 37/24).
- With regard to a clause of Wüstenrot Bausparkasse AG, according to which an account fee of 15 euros is due for every building savings account in the tariff variants KP, KF, P and T in the savings phase at the beginning of the year, the defendant building society has filed a lawsuit before the LG Stuttgart ( LG Stuttgart Ref. 53 O 165/23) issued a cease and desist declaration.
- The “service fee” of 15 euros from Signal Iduna Bauspar AG is unlawful (Hanseatic Higher Regional Court of Hamburg, judgment of March 21, 2024; Ref. 5 U 128/22). It is still unclear whether the building society will also have to pay back the fees received to consumers even without their action. The Higher Regional Court denied this, and a decision on this matter is still pending before the BGH (BGH, Ref. I ZR 60/24).
- LBS Landesbausparkasse NordWest was sentenced by the Dortmund Regional Court to no longer use a clause that provides for an “annual fee” of 12 euros for obtaining and maintaining the right to receive a building society loan. According to the ruling, the building society must inform the affected customers about the illegality of the clause. (LG Dortmund, Ref.: 25 O 272/23). The building society appealed against this judgment. Now the Higher Regional Court must decide (OLG Hamm, Az I-31 U 33/24).
- The Debeka building society introduced a new fee for the BS1 and BS3 tariffs retroactively to January 1, 2017, also known as the service fee. The flat rate service charge required is also illegal, as the Koblenz Higher Regional Court finally decided after the lawsuit filed by the Saxony Consumer Center (Az. 2 U 1/19). After that, the subsequently introduced service fee is not permitted in the savings phase. Costs for control and administrative work must not be passed on to building society customers. There was no decision by the Federal Court of Justice in this case because the building society withdrew its appeal against the judgment of the Higher Regional Court shortly before the hearing.
Would you like to claim back wrongly charged annual fees in your building savings contract? Then this sample letter will help you. If the building society refers to the case law that is still partially open, you can contact the relevant arbitration board for private building societies or, in the case of state building societies, the VÖB ombudsman or contact your local consumer advice center.
