Amsterdam/Zoetermeer - Interbank must remove the registration of a client of Dynamiet Nederland within 24 hours, the Amsterdam District Court's preliminary relief judge ruled.
Dynamite's client had taken out a revolving credit with Interbank in 2016 for EUR 7,500. After a short time, arrears arose and client was registered with a persistent A2 code in the BKR. The arrears arose when the client lost her mother, went to live on her own and gave all her savings to her father to save his company from bankruptcy. On her own initiative, the client called in a debt relief agency, but the agency failed to handle her case properly. Eventually, the client herself paid off the claim with Interbank.
No mortgage due to BKR registration
After Interbank's claim was settled, the client was told by her landlord that she must vacate the property by August 2020. This is because the property will become an office building. Client immediately opened the search for a suitable new home and purchased a property. Unfortunately, she was told by several parties that she was denied a mortgage because of the BKR registration in her name. With her back against the wall, she contacted Dynamiet Netherlands to help her.
Legal Steps
Dynamite Netherlands immediately contacted Interbank to receive its file and eventually objected to the registration of personal data in the BKR. Interbank, despite all efforts, would not cooperate in the removal of the BKR registration. The public interest in credit registration would outweigh the interest of the data subject. Dynamite Netherlands and its client decide to file a lawsuit together. Given that the client has signed a purchase agreement and only has a few weeks to complete the mortgage, it was decided to initiate summary proceedings.
The court
The court noted that it is up to the lender to demonstrate that maintaining the BKR registration longer is necessary. This consideration must be made on the basis of the facts and circumstances known at that time, so also the facts that occurred after the registration. The BKR registration must always comply with the rules of proportionality. The court explicitly refers to the 2011 Supreme Court ruling.
Further, the court ruled that it was indeed true that there were payment problems. But the client has clearly explained how she got into this situation. First she lost her mother, then she tried to save her father from the financial abyss and as a result she lost her savings. She was young, standing on her own two feet for the first time, and then she also became unemployed. She herself called in an institution to help her with her finances. They handled the matter very badly and she suffered as a result. At the bottom line, however, she has always made every effort to make the best of it and to repay the debt in the best way possible.
The interest of lenders in being warned for clients is ultimately small, according to the court. The arrears that led to the BKR registration give no reason to fear overcrediting at this time, the court ruled. On the other hand, the client has a particularly strong interest in the removal of her BKR registration. She has her back against the wall and needs housing. It is therefore of great importance that the purchase of the house can go through.
Open the verdict