There is excitement around the decision to "reform" the functioning of theFinancial Banking Arbitrator, the alternative tool to ordinary justice created by the Bank of Italy to resolve disputes between banks and financial intermediaries and their customers.
The financial banking arbitrator, also known by the acronym Abf, paradoxically risks become a victim of its own success. Indeed, over the years, the efficiency and above all the speed of the system have produced a real boom in appeals which, without adequate rationalization, could risk throwing the very characteristics of the system that led to its success into a tailspin.
Financial Banking Arbitrator: what it is
The Abf is a system that allows for the resolution of disputes between banks, customers and intermediaries regarding banking and financial operations and services without resorting to ordinary justice, guaranteeing a speed and a (low) cost unattainable for anyone who decides to apply to a court.
The ABF is an independent and impartial body, supported in its operation by the Bank of Italy, which allows you to present an appeal without the assistance of a lawyer and based exclusively on the documentation produced by the parties (appellant and intermediaries)o. Compared to the decisions of a judge, however, those of the Abf are not binding.
ALSO READ: Financial Banking Arbitrator: boom in appeals, here's how it works
Financial Banking Arbitrator: the boom in appeals
In 2017, the ABF received around 30.600 appeals, 42% more than in 2016. 73% of these appeals concerned salary or pension assignments. In the first quarter of 2018 (latest data available), the number of appeals reached 8 thousand.
Secondo the data provided by Abf, still on 2017, the decisions were 24 thousand, while 77% of the appeals had a substantially favorable outcome for the customer (47% accepted; 30% ceased) with refunds that reached the record figure of 19 million euros.
The effectiveness of the tool also yielded a short circuit that has become more misleading day by day. That of serial and increasingly audacious appeals born essentially due to two factors: not always reliable financial intermediaries and excessive "zeal" of some lawyers who have created a real "appeals industry" on which to profit.
The risk, in the face of all this, is that a tool created to streamline and speed up will be paralyzed by behaviors far beyond the limit of correctness.
Financial Banking Arbitrator: what the reform foresees
These are the reasons that prompted the Bank of Italy to put a document for consultation which plans to rationalize the functioning mechanism of the ABF instrument.
Among the main changes stand out those related to the strengthening the role of college presidents, but also of the Coordinating College and the Conference of Colleges. An extension of the terms for the arbitrator's decision is also envisaged. In detail, the preliminary investigation phase may last up to 70 days from receipt of the appeal and, subsequently, the panel will have 180 days to make a decision. They also change the times set for savers: before being able to file an appeal with the Abf, customers will have to wait 60 days (today they are 30) from the day the complaint is presented to the intermediary.
Changes also to the prescription, which will go from 10 to 5 years from the sending of the appeal. Finally, the document also proposes the possible centralization of appeals concerning similar matters within the same board.
Financial Banking Arbitrator: criticism of the reform and Bank of Italy's response
Faced with the document, some financial advisors have raised concerns. The first concerns precisely the halving of prescription times which could make most of the appeals inadmissible, excluding those who signed or extinguished mortgages or salary-backed loans before 2014.
On the matter, FIRSTonline consulted directly via Nazionale, which responded to the criticisms as follows: "As regards the issue of temporal jurisdiction, we recall that when the ABF was launched, in 2009, disputes arising only in the previous two years (the time limit was set at 1 January 2007). The term was then moved "forward" by two years to 1 January 2009, on the occasion of the amendments to the Provisions introduced in 2011, taking into account the fact that the functionality of the dispute resolution procedure risked being undermined by the submission to the 'Arbitrator of very old disputes, for which it could be difficult to find all the relevant documentation. We know that the functionality of the ABF, characterized by a procedure based exclusively on documents, is influenced by the presentation of dated disputes, so finding the documentation may not be easy. The primary objective of the revision is therefore to improve the functionality of the referee to ensure faster responses. It is not easy to calculate the percentage of current appeals that in theory would be inadmissible: the most "old" ones are the appeals on salary-backed loans, which are progressively decreasing."
These are the starting data of the consultation. We'll see how it ends, but the Abf is a little gem that must be absolutely preserved and, if possible, improved and it is in everyone's interest to do so.
…no comment
So what is annoying is the BOOM of appeals, it seems to me that we are exaggerating a bit, shifting the attention away from the savings of the banks or even 15 billion from such a manoeuvre.
Just a note on the sentence quoted in response "We know that the functionality of the ABF, characterized by a procedure based exclusively on documents, is influenced by the presentation of dated disputes, so finding the documentation may not be easy" this is idiotic : banks already have a 10-year document retention obligation.
Congratulations