
The court upheld the fine to the bank for frequent calls to the debtor
One of the well-known banks was unable to cancel a fine of 70 thousand rubles, imposed for making too frequent calls to a customer with overdue debts. The decision on punishment issued by the bailiff service was confirmed first by the Arbitration Court of the Kirov region, and then by the Court of Appeal.
The proceedings began after a complaint from a bank customer living in the Kumensky district. He appealed to the Main Directorate of the Federal Bailiff Service for the Kirov region, pointing out violations on the part of the bank when trying to repay an overdue loan. The bailiffs conducted an inspection and found that the bank had violated the law on the protection of the rights of individuals in debt collection.
According to the case file, the bank's employees called the debtor significantly more often than is permitted by law. Violations of the limits on the number of calls per day, per week and per month were recorded. Based on these data, the FSSP issued a resolution on bringing the bank to administrative responsibility under part 1 of Article 14.57 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation and imposed a fine of 70 thousand rubles.
The bank did not agree with the bailiffs' decision and appealed to the Arbitration Court of the Kirov region. Representatives of the bank claimed that there was no violation, as the interaction took place within the framework of the law, and the debtor did not report an unwillingness to continue communication. However, the court of first instance, having studied the details of the calls and other materials, concluded that the FSSP lawfully established the fact of the violation. The court also noted that the bank had abused its right to interact with the debtor.
The Bank tried to appeal this decision to the Second Arbitration Court of Appeal. However, the higher instance agreed with the conclusions of the first court and dismissed the appeal.
Другие Новости Кирова (НЗК)






The court upheld the fine to the bank for frequent calls to the debtor
The Bank was unable to challenge the penalty for violating the debt collection rules.