Revolving cards have given many consumers major headaches in recent years. It is a credit product that allows you to defer and split payments for purchases made. The problem is that, in many cases, the users of these products have had to face abusive interests and, as a consequence, many claim processes have been opened -95% of which have ended with success for those affected- in recent years.
Many consumers do not know if these interests can be claimed and what are the steps to follow to do so. Another of the usual doubts is for how many years a 'revolving' card can be claimed. Or, better said, for how long is it possible to request reimbursement of the abusive interest derived from them. In this sense, it is necessary to differentiate between the two actions that are exercised in a hypothetical judicial procedure.
In this case, on the one hand we have the action of radical nullity, established in article 1 of the well-known Law of the Repression of Usury of Don Gumersindo de Azcárate (hereinafter LRU). And, on the other hand, the accessory action for the restitution of benefits, in accordance with the provisions of article 3 of the LRU.
While the action for radical nullity is not subject to a statute of limitations, that is, it is imprescriptible, where we find the controversy is in determining the dies a quo in the computation of the term for the restitution action. It should not be forgotten that the limitation period applicable to this action is the general one for personal actions established in article 1964.2 of the Civil Code.
The 'revolving' cards have been in the crosshairs of justice for years, which long ago determined that the interest that banks charge for deferred payment as abusive. Now, different courts have begun to point out that users of this type of card have a time limit to sue financial institutions and get them to return the money from the interest charged in excess.
In this sense, and given that in the reform of the Civil Code of October 2015, a limitation period of 15 years was passed to the current 5, the payments made between October 7, 2005 and October 7, 2015, prescribed on December 28, 2020. This is so due to the suspension of administrative deadlines decreed in response to covid-19. In the case of signing the contract for the card -and the derived commissions that can be claimed- the prescription periods are the same.
This prescription seeks to protect the legal certainty of the regulatory system and determines that the return of amounts overcharged by the bank prescribes after 5 years, in accordance with the reform of the Civil Code, which entered into force on December 28, 2020 and thus reduced this limitation period for personal actions from 15 to 5 years.
This translates into the fact that, if a client sues and wins the lawsuit against the bank, said entity would only return the interest that he has paid on the receipts corresponding to the five years prior to the moment in which he decided to file the claim.
4
