Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
5 min of reading 
0 comments 
Mato Grosso Court Recognized Flaw in Credit Hiring, Pointed Out Lack of Clear Information to Consumers, and Determined Debt Recalculation After Nearly Nine Years of Payroll Deductions Related to Unused Consigned Credit Card.
The Mato Grosso Court condemned Banco BMG S.A. to refund amounts improperly deducted from a client who sought a traditional consigned loan but ended up linked to a consigned credit card contract.
According to the verdict, the charge extended over 72 installments, from December 2013 to June 2022, without effective amortization of the principal and with the dynamics of revolving credit.
The case was judged by Judge Silvio Mendonça Ribeiro Filho, of the First Court of Barra do Bugres, in a lawsuit filed by Orlando Cesar Schwarz.
-
A new law being voted on in Brazil proposes a minimum fare of R$ 10 per trip and R$ 2.50 per kilometer for Uber and 99 drivers, and promises to ensure they earn as well as taxi drivers did during the golden age of taxis in the country.
-
Bauer Group collapses after failed judicial recovery: 25 years, 800 vehicles, and a network of gas stations leave a debt of R$ 50 million and 100 layoffs, exposing costs, tight margins, and expensive credit in Brazil.
-
Premium Brazilian brand born during the pandemic brings fine cocoa from Bahia to Switzerland, Germany, and France, has won 9 awards, and claims to have the 2nd best milk chocolate in the world: meet Luz Cacau.
-
Júnior Friboi has just purchased one of the largest feedlots in all of Brazil, located in Goiás, with the capacity to produce 180,000 cattle per year, and the manager has already come forward to reassure employees about layoffs.
In the lawsuit, the consumer stated that representatives from the bank approached him offering a consigned loan with payroll deductions, as is typical in the common modality, with a defined number of installments.
Hiring of Consigned Loan and Discrepancy in the Contract
According to the action, the money was released to the plaintiff via bank transfer directly to their account, as if it were a loan.
Still, instead of a traditional consigned loan contract, what was formalized was a consigned credit card with a reserved margin, a model where part of the income is committed to the minimum payment and the remaining balance can be refinanced.
The client maintained that they did not use the physical card for purchases and did not receive clear information about the nature of the product, the charges, the actual term for settlement, and the method of amortization.
Even without using the card, he reports having suffered monthly deductions identified on his pay stub as “credit card” for almost nine years.
In the records, the sum of the 72 deducted installments, updated, was indicated as R$ 30,342.73.
The consumer’s central allegation is that the deductions did not reduce the debt as would occur in a loan with fixed installments and amortization of the principal amount, which, in practice, kept the balance rolling over.
Consigned Card, Revolving Credit, and Absence of Amortization
When analyzing the contract and the form of charging, the magistrate pointed out that the structure of the consigned card, when used as a withdrawal with automatic discount of the minimum value from payroll and monthly refinancing of the balance, can generate an obligation that extends indefinitely.
In the judge’s assessment, there was a lack of transparency regarding how the operation worked and how the consumer could settle the debt.
The decision also noted that there were no elements demonstrating routine purchases with the card by the plaintiff, which reinforced the narrative that he intended to contract a common consigned loan, with a set term and scheduled payment.
“The evidence does not indicate the use of the card for ordinary purchases by the plaintiff, which reinforces his version that he was actually seeking a traditional consigned loan, with a certain number of installments and amortization of the principal, and not a revolving credit product with a reserved margin. Therefore, there is a recognition of the violation of the duty to inform and the distortion of the consigned modality, imposing excessive burden on the consumer.”
Based on this understanding, the ruling concluded that the model applied imposed excessive burden on the client, in addition to failing to clarify, at the time of hiring, how the debt would be settled and in what time frame this would occur.
Consumer’s Request and Court Decision
In the action, Orlando Cesar Schwarz requested the recognition of the abusiveness of the consigned credit card contract and the conversion of the bond into a traditional consigned loan.
The request included the application of the average market rate published by the Central Bank at the time of hiring, in addition to the refund of amounts deducted during the period in which there were charges.
The ruling determined that the debt should be recalculated according to the parameters set forth in the decision.
After this recalculation, if it is demonstrated that the payroll deductions exceeded the amount actually owed, the excess must be refunded to the consumer.
The magistrate established that the refund should occur simply, with monetary correction from each disbursement and the incidence of interest, as indicated in the ruling.
Impact of the Case on the Debate About Consigned Credit
The consigned credit card is a product available in the market and, in theory, can be used for purchases and withdrawals, with charging linked to the reserved margin.
The controversy, pointed out in the decision, arises when the consumer believes they are contracting a traditional consigned loan but is inserted into a revolving credit modality, with minimum payment deducted from payroll and refinancing of the remaining balance.
In this type of dynamic, the account can extend indefinitely if the amount deducted monthly is not sufficient to amortize the principal, a situation described in the ruling as a risk of perpetuating the debt.
By recognizing the failure of information, the judge understood that the hiring moved away from the expected logic by the consumer when seeking a consigned loan with fixed installments.
Banco BMG S.A. was cited as the defendant in the process, and in the ruling, the solution adopted was the adjustment of the contract to the parameters defined by the court and the return of what is charged beyond what is due after recalculation.
With the decision, the discussion is no longer just about the total amount deducted but rather focuses on how the contract was presented, whether there was clarity about the rules of the product, and whether the deductions applied corresponded to a debt that effectively reduced over time.
In similar cases, the decisive point often tends to be the evidence of what was offered and what was understood at the time of contracting, as well as the card’s usage history and the evolution of payroll deductions.
After all, if the debt is not amortizing and the consumer does not understand how to settle it, what should be the limit between a permitted financial product and a charge considered abusive?
Seja o primeiro a reagir!