BBVA was ordered to refund €684 over an abusive mortgage clause. Credit: vvaz from Imágenes de Vvaz via Canva.com
Usually, when you take out the mortgage, you do expect to pay back the loan, not your bank’s notary fees. That’s precisely what one Spanish court has ruled against this month, ordering BBVA to refund €684 to a client after declaring one of its mortgage clauses abusive. The clause in question. It forced borrowers to pay for virtually every associated cost out of their mortgage, ranging from registration to administrative expenses.
While BBVA walked away without paying a cent, this ruling might sound small, but it lands in the middle of a long line of legal troubles for BBVA: Who should pay for the fine print, and if you’re a homeowner in Spain, this decision might mean you are owed money as well.
What BBVA did
When a couple took out their mortgage with BBVA, they didn’t just agree to the monthly repayments. The contract also stated that they had to pay for everything else, including the notary, registration fees, paperwork, and administration fees.
In total, it incurred €684 in extra costs, all of which were passed on to the customer, and BBVA did not cover a single cent. The Spanish court ruled that the clause was abusive. Why? Because it broke the law. The judge said it unfairly tipped the responsibility in favour of the bank by violating fundamental consumer protection laws.
A bank cannot transfer all the cost of doing business with a client, especially not through a contract where most people don’t even realise they can challenge it.
Now, BBVA must repay the €684, and the ruling could serve as a precedent for other homeowners in a similar situation. If you were charged all the fees for your mortgage, you might be able to claim them back.
BBVA’s track record
This is not the first time BBVA’s contracts have landed in court or made headlines. Back in the 2010s, it came under fire for “clausulas suelo” (floor Clauses), which set the minimum interest rate on valuable mortgages. As a result, when interest rates dropped, customers continued to pay high rates. Many of them were unaware that this was happening.
In 2013, the Spanish Supreme Court ruled on those clauses were unfair, then after that the European Court of justice stepped in and said to the banks including BBVA that they had to refund customers all the money that the customer’s overpaid and some of the homeowners got their money back but that wasn’t all.
BBVA has also been investigated in recent years for high-profile corporate spying scandals, which involved payments to a former police commissioner who dug up information on its Rivals and journalists.
So, the Fallout shook Spain’s financial world and triggered internal reform. In short, this latest ruling isn’t an isolated mistake; it’s a pattern, and the Spanish courts are peeling back those layers.
Could this affect your mortgage?
If you have taken out a mortgage in Spain within the last 10 to 15 years, you may be sitting on a refund without even realising it. Spanish courts have consistently ruled that charging customers for all the notary registration and administrative costs is illegal, especially if it’s buried within the fine print and a contract that you never negotiated.
- Did you pay all the fees when you took out the mortgage?
- Was the contract from BBVA or another major bank?
- Did your bank assign a notary to you, or has it stored it without your discussion?
If so, then the legal precedent is in your favour. You can be entitled to claim back hundreds or even thousands of Euros, depending on your case.
Consumer groups across Spain, including FACUA and OCU, have been encouraging more people to come forward, and while this process involves a lot of paperwork, it’s far from hopeless. Many clients have already won, so if you’ve never looked back at your mortgage, now might be a good time to do so.
The power of the refund
In the case of the client, winning back €684 may not seem like a significant amount. On the contrary, where nearly every household has some form of debt and banks wield this enormous contractual power, rulings including this one chip away at the bigger imbalance.
This is a reminder that the fine print does matter and that even the most standard contract can be questioned and challenged when it crosses the line. For BBVA, this is another page in a long legal history, but for the rest of us, it’s proof that just because something is familiar does not mean it’s fair.
