Contact center
(from Russia)
ext 00020 (from abroad)
Monday - Friday from 8:00 to 20:00 (Moscow time), except public holidays, free call from regions of Russia
25 june 2024, 12:31
A resident of the Moscow region concluded an agreement with a major Russian bank in October 2019 on the provision and use of a financial institution’s bank card (credit agreement). In accordance with the terms of the agreement, she was granted a credit limit of RUB 60,000.
According to an account statement provided by the bank, the client topped up her “Troika” travel card in the amount of RUB 300 at the expense of the credit limit. The financial institution charged a fee of RUB 607.70 for the transaction.
In February 2024, the client applied to the financial institution with an application to terminate the bank card (card closure), and it was executed, which is confirmed by the documents provided.
In April 2024, the woman filed a claim with the bank, including a request for clarification regarding the financial institution’s withholding of a fee for topping up the Troika travel card and for a refund of the said fee.
In order to recover the commission withheld by the bank, the woman appealed to the Financial Ombudsman.
Financial Ombudsman Tatiana Savitskaya considered the appeal and established the circumstances of the dispute. According to the terms and conditions of the collection of tariffs and interest rates on bank cards of the financial institution in the version in force on the date of the loan agreement, with which the client respectively agreed, for transactions of non-cash payment for goods and services, the withholding of commission is not provided.
The Financial Ombudsman explained that “according to the applicant’s receipt, she made a payment transaction in favour of the State Unitary Enterprise “Moscow Metro”, while the bank indicated that the transaction was made in the personal cabinet of the Internet bank, and therefore is a transfer of funds, and not a payment transaction”.
In this regard, the actions of the financial institution to withhold the commission in the amount of RUB 607.70 for this operation are unlawful, since the materials of the appeal do not contain other information and documents indicating the existence of a commission for the operation of replenishment of the travel card and the applicant’s agreement with this commission.
In view of the above, the Financial Ombudsman decided to satisfy the applicant’s claim to recover the funds withheld by the bank as a commission for the disputed transaction and to recover RUB 607.70 from the financial institution in favour of the applicant.
