Response to consultation on Technical Standards on standardised terminology and disclosure documents under the PAD
Go back
Preserve the resources
The European Commission is firmly committed to the aim of a “resource-efficient Europe”. With this in mind, sustainability is an aspect that should be taken more strongly into account when designing the standardised presentation format of the fee information document (FID) and the standardised presentation format of the statement of fees (SoF).
For example, the Payment Accounts Directive (PAD) requires the SoF to be a brief, separate document that should be “presented and laid out in a way that is clear and easy to read” (Article 5 (2) of the PAD). The EBA’s proposed mandatory layout specifications (e.g. font size) ultimately mean that the printed SoF – whether generated by the bank or the client – calls for more pages than are required to comply with the PAD requirements or achieve the regulatory aim pursued by these (clear and comparable information). Banking practice shows that institutions already meet their existing client information requirements also where they use smaller font sizes and other formats.
Based on the proposed SoF specifications in the consultation document, our member banks estimate that a statement issued annually for each client would be at least three pages long. If, for example, the annual SoF were to be printed for just half of the approximately 688 million bank account holders in the EU (ECB Blue Book 2014), the result would be around 1,000 million pages. By way of illustration: 1 packet of 500 sheets of paper is 5 cm thick, so the required 2 million packets (each containing 500 sheets) would create a stack that would be 100 km high. To preserve resources and save costs, the requirements for the standardised formats should therefore be reviewed and streamlined (see in this context also our replies in the following).
Information should be clearly identifiable as coming from a specific payment service provider
Payment service providers today already use standardised and consumer-friendly forms of client information (e.g. current account/custody account statement) based on their own corporate design. Under the layout specifications proposed by the EBA, which would be mandatory and inevitably differ from each institution’s own corporate design, clients would receive information in future that they would not be able to clearly identify as coming from their payment service provider. This is more likely to confuse them.
Make client information consumer-friendly
We feel that the overemphasis on headings and categorisation through grey shading and a large font size prevent consumers from quickly taking in the numbers. The SoF layout also creates a contradiction as to what is relevant by overemphasising categories, while shrinking and underemphasising client data. The excessively large font size also leads to higher paper consumption, especially when a lot of information is required (e.g. when reporting changes to interest charges on overdrafts and interest payments on balances). The regular font sizes that payment service providers use in their own corporate design or a minimum font size should therefore be adequate to ensure that the SoF is presented in a readable format (see also our answer to question 5). Based on the draft SoF specifications in the consultation paper, we estimate that there would be at least three pages per client for one annual statement of fees. This leads to increased paper consumption, especially with clients who use many different services that must be reported under existing regulation. For this reason, we recommend to regulate a minimum font sizes or allowing payment service provider to use their internal specifications in order to save paper. Production and postage costs would also rise accordingly if paper consumption increases (see in this context also our replies in the following).
Own and third-party fees – remove legal uncertainty
It is our understanding that only fees originated by the payment service provider have to be displayed in the FID and SoF. To avoid any legal uncertainty, it should be made clear in the delegated act on the FID and the SoF that (often unknown) third-party fees do not have to be displayed.
Entry into force – make it concurrent with PSD2
According to Article 6 (1) of the PAD, Member States must “ensure that in their contractual, commercial and marketing information to consumers, payment service providers use, where applicable, the standardised terms set out in the final list referred to in Article 3(5)” of the PAD. This leads to extremely high implementation costs for payment service providers. Considering that this also holds true for implementation of the requirements set by the Second Payment Services Directive (PSD2), particular attention should be paid to concurrent entry into force.
It should also be remembered that a statement of fees must be generated at the end of a contractual relationship as well. The timeline for application of the Directive should therefore allow adequate lead time for technical implementation and “collection” of fees paid by each client.
Besides cost-efficiency considerations, a concurrent entry into force is also desirable for environmental reasons. Finally, concurrent entry into force would also be beneficial to consumers, as they would not be confronted several times with legally initiated (PSD2-related) changes to the contractual relationship with their payment service providers, especially to the same contracts, conditions or documents.
B. Question 1: Do you agree with the EBA’s decision to take a broad approach to defining ‘service’? Please explain your reasoning.
• We recognize the difficulties the EBA encountered because the PAD does not clarify which services specifically constitute a “service” in the context of the PAD. We also recognize the benefits the EBA attributes to the broad approach to defining “service”. However, there are some aspects we would like to highlight.
• As the EBA explains, the broad approach leads to potential consequences during the integration phase by Member States. These consequences need to be carefully addressed so that they do not, in the end, frustrate the objectives of the directive, especially given the fact that the EBA itself originally supported the narrow approach in its guidelines on national provisional lists of the most representative services linked to a payment account and subject to a fee under the PAD.
• The examples of services mentioned in the guidelines were considerably granular. If the EBA now advocates a broad approach, it has to be ensured that there are no negative consequences for payment service providers in Member States that followed the guidelines and defined “service” the way the EBA defined “service” in the guidelines (e.g. explicit references to SEPA).
• We especially welcome the EBA’s conclusion that it would not be appropriate to treat the various combinations of online banking with other services as constituting the same service. We share the EBA’s view that a standardised definition in this case would not result in more transparency and true comparability for consumers.
• We welcome the use of the third person. For cost-efficiency and environmental reasons, we also welcome the EBA’s efforts to find short and direct terms. Nevertheless, the terms have to be specific enough to ensure legal certainty for consumers and payment service providers alike. We would like the EBA to consider that the broad approach can harbour the potential to define terms that consumers are used to in connection with different (similar) services not linked to a payment account but to, for example, a deposit account.
• We, too, see the benefit of using language that is accessibe to consumers. We also agree with the EBA that this can only be a guiding principle and that there might be situations in which the Union standardised terminology will have to depart from this principle. There are some examples where, in our view, the terms chosen need to be legally more precise in order to prevent irritation on the part of the consumer.
• In Recital 4 of the draft RTS “account provider” should be replaced by “payment service provider”.
• Article 2 “Entry into force”: To ensure a concurrent entry into force with the PSD2 we suggest that the Regulation shall enter into force six months after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
• The EBA came to the view that, on balance, the language used must be accessible to consumers, meaning that, as far as possible, the Union standardised terms and definitions should be drafted in clear, simple and consumer-oriented language which avoids the use of legal terminology. The EBA also acknowledges that there may be situations in which the Union standardised terminology will have to depart from this principle in order to meet other important objectives. As already mentioned in the reply to question 3, we believe that a couple of deviations from this principle are necessary in the German Annex with the Union standardised terms and definitions.
• Regarding the German Annex with the Union standardised terms and definitions, some of the definitions do not reflect all legally possible services under German law or actually conflict with legal provisions. We recommend that the terms and definitions should be consistent with those used in PAD and PSD2, in particular the definition “payment service provider” (Article 4 (17) PSD2)
Kontoführung: Der Zahlungsdienstleister" führt das Konto, das durch den Kunden genutzt wird. The term “Kontoanbieter” (account provider) is not commonly used in the German language to refer to a payment service provider. Other terms such as “Bank” (bank), “Sparkasse” (savings bank) or “Kreditinstitut” (credit institution) would be as well misleading when used to refer to the specific category of payment service providers. Therefore, the legal term “Zahlungsdienstleister” (payment service provider) should be used in the (German) Annex (see also Article 4 no. 17 PSD II and Section 1 para. 1 of the Payment Services Supervision Act, ZAG).
Ausgabe einer Debitkarte: Alternatively: Debitkarte:. Der Zahlungsdienstleister stellt eine Zahlungskarte bereit, die mit dem Konto des Kunden verknüpft ist. Der Betrag jeder Transaktion mit der Zahlungskarte wird direkt und in voller Höhe von dem Konto des Kunden abgebucht. The wording „Ausgabe“ is commonly used in Germany in connection with the service “Providing a debit card”. In addition, the PSD II and German law as well refer to such service with the term “Ausgabe” (see Article 69 (1) a) PSD II and Section 675m para. 1 of the German Civil Code, BGB). In the illustrative example of the FID the EBA provided in the CP (page 29) the EBA itself uses the term “1 debit card” in the first table “Packages of Services”. At any case, as indicated in the proposed Annex for Austria, the correct German spelling of “Debitkarte” instead of “Debitcard” must be used.
Ausgabe einer Kreditkarte: Alternatively: Kreditkarte: Der Zahlungsdienstleister oder ein sonstiger Kreditkartenanbieter stellt eine Zahlungskarte bereit, die mit dem Konto des Kunden verknüpft ist. Der Gesamtbetrag der Transaktionen mit der Zahlungskarte innerhalb eines vereinbarten Zeitraums wird zu einem bestimmten Termin in voller Höhe oder teilweise von dem Konto des Kunden abgebucht. In einer Vereinbarung zwischen dem Kunden und dem Zahlungsdienstleister oder dem sonstigen Kreditkartenanbieter wird festgelegt, ob und welche Entgelte und/oder Zinsen dem Kunden hierfür berechnet werden.The wording „Ausgabe“ is commonly used in Germany in connection with the service “Providing a credit card”. In addition, the PSD II and German law as well refer to such service with the term “Ausgabe” (see Article 69 (1) a) PSD-II and Section 675m para. 1 of the German Civil Code, BGB). Further, the contractual relationships regarding the issuance of credit cards may vary and may also include the issuance by other credit card providers. The definition of the service should therefore be open to all possible variations.
Eingeräumte Kontoüberziehung: Der Zahlungsdienstleister und der Kunde vereinbaren im Voraus, dass der Kunde sein Konto belasten kann, auch wenn kein Guthaben mehr auf dem Konto vorhanden ist. In der Vereinbarung wird festgelegt, bis zu welcher Höhe das Konto in diesem Fall belastet werden kann und ob und welche Entgelte und/oder Zinsen dem Kunden berechnet werden. The term „Kontoüberziehung“ is rather general in the German language and refers to both the use of an overdraft facility as well as overrunning (see Article 3 d) and e) of Directive 2008/48/EC on credit agreements for consumers). Without further context it is therefore misleading. For purposes of distinction between these services, the wording has to be adjusted. Directive 2008/48/EC as well as German law refer to overdraft facilities with the term “Eingeräumte Überziehungsmöglichkeit” (see Article 12 of Directive 2008/48/EC and Section 504 of the German Civil Code, BGB).
Überweisung: Der Zahlungsdienstleister übermittelt auf Anweisung des Kunden einen bestimmten oder zum Zeitpunkt der Ausführung bestimmbaren Geldbetrag von dem Konto des Kunden auf ein anderes Konto.The wording for “Überweisung” (credit transfer) should match the wording for „Dauerauftrag“ (standing order; see below) because standing orders are only a sub-category of credit transfers (see also No 4 of the Annex I to the PSD II).
Dauerauftrag:Der Zahlungsdienstleister übermittelt auf Anweisung des Kunden regelmäßig einen bestimmten oder zum Zeitpunkt der Ausführung bestimmbaren Geldbetrag vom Konto des Kunden auf ein anderes Konto. See above.
Lastschrift: Der Kunde ermächtigt einen Zahlungsempfänger den Zahlungsdienstleister anzuweisen, zu einem oder mehreren zwischen dem Kunden und dem Zahlungsempfänger vereinbarten Termin(en) das Konto des Kunden mit einem bestimmten oder bestimmbaren Geldbetrag zu belasten.The wording ”eine andere Person (Empfänger)” suggests that only natural persons could be the recipient of the permission of the consumer/customer. According to the PSD II the recipient can be a natural or legal person. Therefore the definition should be neutral and only refer to the recipient. Furthermore, the definition of the German versions of Article 2 no. 19 PAD and Article 4 no. 23 PSD II should be taken into account.
Bargeldauszahlung: Der Kunde hebt Bargeld von seinem Konto ab. The wording „Auszahlung“ is commonly used in Germany in connection with the service “Cash withdrawal”. In addition, the PSD-II and German law as well refer to such service with the term “Auszahlung” (see Article 69 (1) a) PSD-II, Section 1 para. 2 no. 1 of the Payment Services Supervision Act, ZAG).
For further details see our additonal comments (separate e-mail)."
A few points that, in our view, need to be improved are the following:
• We believe that the date of the FID should be included. Prices are regularly adjusted. It is thus necessary to ensure that the FID is up to date and the consumer receives the correct data along with a temporal frame of reference.
• In the Annex as well as the title of Article 4 of the draft ITS on the FID, “Name of the Account provider” should be changed to “Name of the payment service provider (see Article 2 no 7 PAD).
• Recital 8, Article 10 and the last table in in the Annex should be deleted. Article 4 of the PAD does not provide for the FID to include key indicators. According to Recital 19 of the PAD the “Member States may require key indicators such as a comprehensive cost indicator […] to be provided […] with the fee information document”. Furthermore the comprehensive cost indicator is only one example of possible key indicators. Therefore, if not deleted, in the Annex as well as in Recital 8 and Art. 10, the wording “Comprehensive cost indicator” should be changed to “Key indicator”.
• If not deleted in Recital 8 the wording “in the fee information document” should be changed to “with the fee information document” to match the exact wording of Recital 19 of the PAD.
• Article 4 (2) (g) of the PAD requires the FID template to include a statement that the FID contains fees for the most representative services related to the payment account and that complete pre-contractual and contractual information on all the services is provided in other documents. The proposed wording of the introductory statement goes beyond these requirements. There is no legal basis to provide for an obligation of the payment service provider to name or refer to such documents. Article 6 (2) and the respective square brackets in the Annex should therefore be deleted.
• Furthermore the proposed wording also obliges PSPs to inform consumers in the FID template that a glossary is available free of charge. The PAD does not entail any of these additional information requirements. The PAD has set a clear legal framework. It should, therefore, be respected when drafting the FID template, meaning that the introduction of new (additional) information obligations is not legally feasible.
• The requirement to present fee information in A 4 portrait format (Article 1 (2) (a)), should be reviewed in the light of digitalisation/digital communication with clients. The pre-contractual information requirement can, for example, also be met by way of on-screen information (not necessarily in A 4 format). The use of the template should therefore be less restrictive, as its application in paper format is expected to and should reduce abruptly in the near future. Actually, comparability might prove to be more difficult to achieve given the proposed limitations regarding the format as well as the all-encompassing process of digitisation. In order to ensure that customers are properly informed, digital platforms and ex-ante online communications via different channels (computers, tablets, mobile phones and so on) should be promoted. We do however welcome it that the EBA decided not to add grid lines
• The requirements concerning the font size (for example in Article 1 (2) (a)), should be more flexible. A minimum font size would also ensure the use of characters of a readable size. This is also likely to help reduce the number of pages.
• In communication with clients, the corporate logo is in practice placed at both sides of the document, at the top right-hand side or top left-hand side of the document. To ensure also in future that the client can immediately see who is sending the information, the mandatory requirement to place the “common symbol” at the top right-hand side of the document (Article 1 (2) (b)) should be dropped (freedom of choice for payment services provider). Article 4 (2) (f) only requires the common symbol to be at the top of the first page next to the title.
• In addition, it should be made clear in the delegated act that, to save paper, both the front and back of a page may be used for printing (“duplex printing”).
• The PAD does not require to display the total annual costs in the FID. Therefore all provisions requiring PSPs to include total annual costs should be deleted (Article 7(2); Art. 8(1)).
• It should be clarified that in section overdrafts and related services" interest rates have to be displayed."
• We welcome the fact that according to Article 7 (6) of the draft ITS the table “package of services” can be deleted if such a package of services is not offered with the account or is charged as part of the fee for any general account services. Article 9 “Additional information” should clarify that this table in the FID template can also be deleted if the payment service provider holding the account does not report any services and fees here."
• In branches it is not always possible to print in colour. However, it is common practice to feed printers with a letterhead, which already includes the bank logo in colour. We would therefore suggest softening the requirement set out in paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the relevant ITS: Taking into account the wide diversity of printing equipment available, the constraints in terms of print quality of the document (colour versus black and white) should be reduced in cases of printing at a branch or a banking terminal. Namely, we believe that a document’s readability and distinctiveness will be ensured even if the document is printed with a common symbol displayed in black and white, should the logo of the PSP be printed in colour. Therefore, we would like to suggest that more flexibility is afforded regarding these symbols and particularly that they could be displayed in black and white even if the logo of the PSP is printed in colour. It should be clarified which reference code of the RGB colour model is to be used for the common symbol if printed in colour.
• Concerning the SoF, it would be of great benefit to consumers and payment service providers alike if it could be provided to the consumer via a bank statement printer. This is impossible if the symbol consists of drawings. We therefore strongly recommend that the symbol be made up of letters (e.g. EU – SoF). To ensure similarity between the FID and the SoF, we would recommend the same for the common symbol in the FID template (eg. EU-FID).
To a large extent, the instructions set out in Articles 2 to 11 achieve this aim. Still, there are a few points that need clarification:
• The currency in which the fees are indicated should be displayed using the ISO code, (i.e. not using the € symbol like in the example on page 29 f).
• In some countries banking fees are partly subject to taxes. It should therefore be explicitly mentioned in the draft ITS that, if applicable, taxes shall be included in the fees displayed.
•
• Article 2: It should be made clear in the delegated act that, to save paper, both the front and back of a page may be used for printing (“duplex printing”).
• Article 3 “Logo of the payment service provider”:
• In communication with clients, the corporate logo is in practice placed at both sides of the document, at the top right-hand side or top left-hand side of the document. To ensure also in future that the client can immediately see who is sending the information, the mandatory requirement to place the “common symbol” at the top right-hand side of the document (Article 1 (2) (b)) should be dropped. (freedom of choice for payment services provider).
• It is our understanding that the box currently included in the FID template in the upper left corner is only a placeholder and that the logo does not need to be framed by this box. This would be impossible in many cases. This would not be possible because many logos have a different format. Further we feel that the obligation stipulating that the same requirements regarding size (a square no larger than 2.5 cm x 2.5 cm) apply to both to the common symbol and to the logo of a PSP is too limiting. While a precise printing surface may be defined for the common symbol, the visual identity of certain PSPs, contingent heavily upon their respective logos, would often hardly fit into a square of this size. We would therefore like to suggest that these requirements be adjusted to become less restrictive.
• Article 4: In the title of Article 4 as well as in the annex, “account provider” should be replaced by “payment service provider”.
• Article 10: If not deleted (please refer to our answer to question 5) in the title of Article 10, Recital 8 and in the Annex “Comprehensive cost indicator” should be replaced by “Key indicator” as according to Recital 19 of the PAD the comprehensive cost indicator is only one example of possible key indicators.
• Article 11 “Brand names”: before the word “starting”, “if possible” should be inserted, as there might be (future) cases where the name of the service completely fills a line or a hyphenation of the first word of the brand name would be grammatically incorrect.
• Article 12 “Entry into force”: To ensure a concurrent entry into force with the PSD2 we suggest that the Regulation shall enter into force six months after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
We would like to once again propose that more leeway is afforded with respect to the format of the SoF for the reasons described in our answer to Question 5. Furthermore, we would like to reiterate our concerns on digital versions of the SoF not having been foreseen, thereby not properly taking into account the process of digitisation. Therefore, the requirements to provide the SoF as a document of an A4 format appears neither to be adapted to the diversity of today’s possibilities with regard to different media channels, nor is it necessary to ensure that the consumer has received all information required to make sound decisions.
A few points that, in our view, need to be improved are the following:
• Payment Service Providers should be free to include a date so that, in the event of any subsequent queries by the client, it is clear to which document the client is referring. Article 1 (3) should be amended accordingly.
• Recital 3: In the phrase “expressed in the currency of the payment account, or in another currency of the Union”, the words “of the Union” should be deleted to match the exact wording of the PAD.
• Recital 6, Art. 10(4) and the respective table in the SoF template (“Key cost indicator” under Summary of fees and interest) should be deleted. The reference to Recital 19 of the PAD is not correct for the SoF. Recital 19 of the PAD states that “Member States should be able to require key indicators such as a comprehensive cost indicator summarising the overall annual cost of the payment account for consumers to be provided with the fee information document.” Recital 19 does not state that Member States should be able to require key indicators such as a comprehensive cost indicator to be provided in the statement of fees.
• A4 portrait format: It would be of great benefit to consumers and payment service providers alike if the SoF could be provided to the consumer via a bank statement printer. This is not possible if it is mandatory to display it in A4 portrait format. We therefore suggest an exemption from this format if the payment service provider and the consumer agree that the SoF can be provided via a bank statement printer.
• Different colour patterns for headings and sub-headings, strict requirements on font type and font size: These requirements would also prevent payment service providers from providing the SoF via a bank statement printer, so we suggest an exemption if the payment service provider and the consumer agree that the SoF can be provided via a bank statement printer.
• Under “Detailed statement of fees paid on the account”, in the first heading “Number of times the fee was charged” should be changed to “Number of times the service was used” to match the exact wording of the PAD (Article 5 (2) (a).
According to the current draft, payment service providers should specify which services are included in a package of services. This is not required by the PAD and should therefore be deleted. This concerns the table “Detail of the fees included in the package of services” as well as the table “Detailed statement of fees paid on the account”.
• Furthermore, concerning the SoF, it would be of great benefit to consumers and payment service providers alike if it could be provided to the consumer via a bank statement printer. This is impossible if the symbol consists of drawings. We therefore strongly recommend that the symbol be made up of letters (e.g. EU – SoF).
• In branches it is not always possible to print in colour. However, it is common practice to feed printers with a letterhead, which already includes the bank logo in colour. We would therefore suggest softening the requirement set out in paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the relevant ITS: Taking into account the wide diversity of printing equipment available, the constraints in terms of print quality of the document (colour versus black and white) should be reduced in cases of printing at a branch or a banking terminal. Namely, we believe that a document’s readability and distinctiveness will be ensured even if the document is printed with a common symbol displayed in black and white, should the logo of the PSP be printed in colour. Therefore, we would like to suggest that more flexibility is afforded regarding these symbols and particularly that they could be displayed in black and white even if the logo of the PSP is printed in colour. It should be clarified which reference code of the RGB colour model is to be used for the common symbol if printed in colour.
To a large extent, the instructions set out in Articles 2 to 16 achieve this aim. Still, there are a few points that need clarification or could be improved:
• The currency in which the fees are indicated should be displayed using the ISO code (i.e. not using the € symbol like in the example on page 37).
• In some countries banking fees are partly subject to taxes. It should therefore be explicitly mentioned in the draft ITS that, if applicable, taxes shall be included in the fees displayed.
• Given the fact that reductions/discounts will be difficult to indicate in the SoF (except at the bottom of the document under the heading “Additional information”), we would suggest, that they could alternatively appear in lines immediately following the line where fees are disclosed. We suggest the choice of this to be left with PSPs.
• Article 2: It should be made clear in the delegated act that, to save paper, both the front and back of a page may be used for printing (“duplex printing”).
• Article 3: “Logo of the payment service provider”:
• In communication with clients, the corporate logo is in practice usually placed at both sides of the document, at the top right-hand side or top left-hand side of the document of the document. To ensure also in future that the client can immediately see who is sending the information, the mandatory requirement to place the “common symbol” at the top right-hand side of the document (Article 1 (2) (b)) should be dropped (freedom of choice for payment services provider).
• It is our understanding that the box currently included in the FID template in the upper left corner is only a placeholder and that the logo does not need to be framed by this box. This would be impossible in many cases. This would not be possible because many logos have a different format. Further we feel that the obligation stipulating that the same requirements regarding size (a square no larger than 2.5 cm x 2.5 cm) apply to both to the common symbol and to the logo of a PSP is too limiting. While a precise printing surface may be defined for the common symbol, the visual identity of certain PSPs, contingent heavily upon their respective logos, would often hardly fit into a square of this size. We would therefore like to suggest that these requirements be adjusted to become less restrictive.
• In the Annex as well as the title of Article 4 of the draft ITS on the SoF “account provider” should be replaced by “payment service provider”
• Article 6: Introductory statement: Unlike Article 4 (2) (g) of the PAD, which states that the FID must “include a statement that it contains fees for the most representative services related to the payment account and that complete pre-contractual and contractual information on all the services is provided in other documents”, there is no requirement in Article 5 (2) or (3) of the PAD for the SoF to include any introductory statement. The additional information called for in the introductory statement in the draft ITS might be desirable from the consumer’s viewpoint. Nevertheless, the EBA has to accept the clear legal framework set by the PAD and should draft the SoF template within this legal framework and not implement new information obligations.
• Article 10 (2) and (3) should be deleted. There is no legal basis in the PAD to provide for the SoF to contain such information. Article 10 (2) and (3) and Article 14 (4) last sentence, (5) and (7) of the draft ITS state that if interest during the period covered by the SoF amounts to zero, this should be indicated by using “0” or “interest not applicable”. This requirement goes beyond the requirements set under the PAD (Article 5 (2)), which states that only the total amount of interest “charged” and total amount of interest “earned” have to be displayed in the SoF.
• Article 10 (4) should be deleted. According to Recital 19 of the PAD Member States should be able to require key indicators such as a comprehensive cost indicator summarising the overall annual cost of the payment account for consumers to be provided with the fee information document. Key indicators are not required to be provided in the SoF and also the PAD does not encourage Member States to introduce such an obligation.
• Article 12 (10) states that “where a sub-heading does not contain any service and/or fee …, payment service providers shall delete that subheading”. It should be clarified that the entire table must be deleted if it does not contain any services and/or fees.
• Article 13: The wording “paid on the account” should be replaced by “charged to the account” to match the wording of the PAD (Art. 5 (2) (c)).
• Article 13 (3): After “expressed in the currency of the account”, the wording “or, if agreed by the consumer and the payment service provider, in another currency” should be inserted. Article 5 (3) of the PAD is not restricted to fees but applies also to interest.
• Article 13 refers to interest paid on the account. Therefore, para. 5, which refers to interest earned on the account (see also Section 4.5.2, no. 126 of the Consultation Paper), is misplaced and should be deleted.
• Article 13 (5) new: “Where no interest was charged relating to the overdraft during the relevant period payment service providers shall delete the entire table.” It should be clarified that if no interest is applicable to the account or no interest was charged in the relevant period the entire tables should be deleted. An information that interest is not applicable is not required by the PAD and also contradicts the goals of the directive. It has no additional benefit for the consumer. The PAD also states that only the overdraft interest rate applied to the account needs to be contained in the SoF. We therefore suggest to redraft Art. 13 (5) as follows: “Where no interest was charged relating to the overdraft during the relevant period payment service providers shall delete the entire table and also the respective table under summary of fees and interest”.
• Article 14 (4): After “expressed in the currency of the account”, the wording “or, if agreed by the consumer and the payment service provider, in another currency” should be inserted. Article 5 (3) (b) of the PAD is not restricted to fees but applies also to interest.
• Article 14 (4) last sentence, (5), (7): The PAD only requires that the SoF states the following: “the credit interest rate applied to the payment account and the total amount of interest earned during the relevant period, where applicable”. Art. 14(4) last sentence and Art. 14(5) and (7) should therefore be deleted. An information that interest is not applicable or amounts to zero in the relevant period is not required by the PAD and also contradicts the goals of the directive as it might even be misleading to the consumer. We therefore suggest to redraft Art. 14 (7) as follows: “Where a particular does not pay interest during the relevant period payment service providers shall delete the entire table and also the respective table under summary of fees and interest”.
• Article 14 (7) should be deleted (see above). Even if Article 14 (7) is not deleted for the reasons mentioned above it should be deleted because it is a duplication of Article 14 (5).
• Article 14 (7) new: Where a particular account does not pay interest during the relevant period payment service providers shall delete the entire table and also the respective table under summary of fees and interest”.
• Article 16 “Brand names”: before the word “starting”, “if possible” should be inserted, as there might be (future) cases where the name of the service completely fills a line or a hyphenation of the first word of the brand name would be grammatically incorrect.
• Article 17 “Entry into force”: To ensure a concurrent entry into force with the PSD2 we suggest that the Regulation shall enter into force six months after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
for the savings banks finance group, and the Verband deutscher Pfandbriefbanken (vdp), for the Pfandbrief banks. Collectively, they represent approximately 1,700 banks.
for the savings banks finance group, and the Verband deutscher Pfandbriefbanken (vdp), for the Pfandbrief banks. Collectively, they represent approximately 1,700 banks.
Question 1: Do you agree with the EBA’s decision to take a broad approach to defining ‘service’? Please explain your reasoning.
A. General remarksPreserve the resources
The European Commission is firmly committed to the aim of a “resource-efficient Europe”. With this in mind, sustainability is an aspect that should be taken more strongly into account when designing the standardised presentation format of the fee information document (FID) and the standardised presentation format of the statement of fees (SoF).
For example, the Payment Accounts Directive (PAD) requires the SoF to be a brief, separate document that should be “presented and laid out in a way that is clear and easy to read” (Article 5 (2) of the PAD). The EBA’s proposed mandatory layout specifications (e.g. font size) ultimately mean that the printed SoF – whether generated by the bank or the client – calls for more pages than are required to comply with the PAD requirements or achieve the regulatory aim pursued by these (clear and comparable information). Banking practice shows that institutions already meet their existing client information requirements also where they use smaller font sizes and other formats.
Based on the proposed SoF specifications in the consultation document, our member banks estimate that a statement issued annually for each client would be at least three pages long. If, for example, the annual SoF were to be printed for just half of the approximately 688 million bank account holders in the EU (ECB Blue Book 2014), the result would be around 1,000 million pages. By way of illustration: 1 packet of 500 sheets of paper is 5 cm thick, so the required 2 million packets (each containing 500 sheets) would create a stack that would be 100 km high. To preserve resources and save costs, the requirements for the standardised formats should therefore be reviewed and streamlined (see in this context also our replies in the following).
Information should be clearly identifiable as coming from a specific payment service provider
Payment service providers today already use standardised and consumer-friendly forms of client information (e.g. current account/custody account statement) based on their own corporate design. Under the layout specifications proposed by the EBA, which would be mandatory and inevitably differ from each institution’s own corporate design, clients would receive information in future that they would not be able to clearly identify as coming from their payment service provider. This is more likely to confuse them.
Make client information consumer-friendly
We feel that the overemphasis on headings and categorisation through grey shading and a large font size prevent consumers from quickly taking in the numbers. The SoF layout also creates a contradiction as to what is relevant by overemphasising categories, while shrinking and underemphasising client data. The excessively large font size also leads to higher paper consumption, especially when a lot of information is required (e.g. when reporting changes to interest charges on overdrafts and interest payments on balances). The regular font sizes that payment service providers use in their own corporate design or a minimum font size should therefore be adequate to ensure that the SoF is presented in a readable format (see also our answer to question 5). Based on the draft SoF specifications in the consultation paper, we estimate that there would be at least three pages per client for one annual statement of fees. This leads to increased paper consumption, especially with clients who use many different services that must be reported under existing regulation. For this reason, we recommend to regulate a minimum font sizes or allowing payment service provider to use their internal specifications in order to save paper. Production and postage costs would also rise accordingly if paper consumption increases (see in this context also our replies in the following).
Own and third-party fees – remove legal uncertainty
It is our understanding that only fees originated by the payment service provider have to be displayed in the FID and SoF. To avoid any legal uncertainty, it should be made clear in the delegated act on the FID and the SoF that (often unknown) third-party fees do not have to be displayed.
Entry into force – make it concurrent with PSD2
According to Article 6 (1) of the PAD, Member States must “ensure that in their contractual, commercial and marketing information to consumers, payment service providers use, where applicable, the standardised terms set out in the final list referred to in Article 3(5)” of the PAD. This leads to extremely high implementation costs for payment service providers. Considering that this also holds true for implementation of the requirements set by the Second Payment Services Directive (PSD2), particular attention should be paid to concurrent entry into force.
It should also be remembered that a statement of fees must be generated at the end of a contractual relationship as well. The timeline for application of the Directive should therefore allow adequate lead time for technical implementation and “collection” of fees paid by each client.
Besides cost-efficiency considerations, a concurrent entry into force is also desirable for environmental reasons. Finally, concurrent entry into force would also be beneficial to consumers, as they would not be confronted several times with legally initiated (PSD2-related) changes to the contractual relationship with their payment service providers, especially to the same contracts, conditions or documents.
B. Question 1: Do you agree with the EBA’s decision to take a broad approach to defining ‘service’? Please explain your reasoning.
• We recognize the difficulties the EBA encountered because the PAD does not clarify which services specifically constitute a “service” in the context of the PAD. We also recognize the benefits the EBA attributes to the broad approach to defining “service”. However, there are some aspects we would like to highlight.
• As the EBA explains, the broad approach leads to potential consequences during the integration phase by Member States. These consequences need to be carefully addressed so that they do not, in the end, frustrate the objectives of the directive, especially given the fact that the EBA itself originally supported the narrow approach in its guidelines on national provisional lists of the most representative services linked to a payment account and subject to a fee under the PAD.
• The examples of services mentioned in the guidelines were considerably granular. If the EBA now advocates a broad approach, it has to be ensured that there are no negative consequences for payment service providers in Member States that followed the guidelines and defined “service” the way the EBA defined “service” in the guidelines (e.g. explicit references to SEPA).
Question 2: Do you consider the services that the EBA has selected for standardised terms and definitions to be suitable to achieve the aims of the Directive? Please explain your reasoning.
• On the whole, we consider the services that the EBA has selected for the standardised terms and definitions in principle to be suitable to achieve the aims of the Directive. Nevertheless, as already mentioned, it is essential that the consequences of the EBA’s revised view (originally narrow approach; now broad approach) are carefully addressed and safeguards are implemented for Member States that complied with the EBA guidelines.• We especially welcome the EBA’s conclusion that it would not be appropriate to treat the various combinations of online banking with other services as constituting the same service. We share the EBA’s view that a standardised definition in this case would not result in more transparency and true comparability for consumers.
Question 3: Do you consider the drafting decisions taken by the EBA for the standardised terms and definitions, and the resultant provisions in Recitals of the draft RTS, to be suitable for achieving the aims of the Directive of enhancing transparency and comparability? Please explain your reasoning.
• To a large extent, we consider the drafting decisions taken by the EBA for the standardised terms and definitions to be suitable for achieving the aims of the Directive.• We welcome the use of the third person. For cost-efficiency and environmental reasons, we also welcome the EBA’s efforts to find short and direct terms. Nevertheless, the terms have to be specific enough to ensure legal certainty for consumers and payment service providers alike. We would like the EBA to consider that the broad approach can harbour the potential to define terms that consumers are used to in connection with different (similar) services not linked to a payment account but to, for example, a deposit account.
• We, too, see the benefit of using language that is accessibe to consumers. We also agree with the EBA that this can only be a guiding principle and that there might be situations in which the Union standardised terminology will have to depart from this principle. There are some examples where, in our view, the terms chosen need to be legally more precise in order to prevent irritation on the part of the consumer.
• In Recital 4 of the draft RTS “account provider” should be replaced by “payment service provider”.
• Article 2 “Entry into force”: To ensure a concurrent entry into force with the PSD2 we suggest that the Regulation shall enter into force six months after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Question 4: Do you consider the terms and definitions proposed by the EBA in the Annexes to the draft RTS, and the resultant provisions in the Recitals of the draft RTS, to be adequate for achieving the aims of the Directive of enhancing transparency and comparability? If not, please provide alternative terms and definitions and their underlying rationale.
• We acknowledge the aims of the Directive of enhancing transparency and comparability. However, we believe that the drafting decision that has been taken by the EBA for the standardised terms and definitions as well as the resultant provisions in the Recitals of the draft RTS could still be improved.• The EBA came to the view that, on balance, the language used must be accessible to consumers, meaning that, as far as possible, the Union standardised terms and definitions should be drafted in clear, simple and consumer-oriented language which avoids the use of legal terminology. The EBA also acknowledges that there may be situations in which the Union standardised terminology will have to depart from this principle in order to meet other important objectives. As already mentioned in the reply to question 3, we believe that a couple of deviations from this principle are necessary in the German Annex with the Union standardised terms and definitions.
• Regarding the German Annex with the Union standardised terms and definitions, some of the definitions do not reflect all legally possible services under German law or actually conflict with legal provisions. We recommend that the terms and definitions should be consistent with those used in PAD and PSD2, in particular the definition “payment service provider” (Article 4 (17) PSD2)
Kontoführung: Der Zahlungsdienstleister" führt das Konto, das durch den Kunden genutzt wird. The term “Kontoanbieter” (account provider) is not commonly used in the German language to refer to a payment service provider. Other terms such as “Bank” (bank), “Sparkasse” (savings bank) or “Kreditinstitut” (credit institution) would be as well misleading when used to refer to the specific category of payment service providers. Therefore, the legal term “Zahlungsdienstleister” (payment service provider) should be used in the (German) Annex (see also Article 4 no. 17 PSD II and Section 1 para. 1 of the Payment Services Supervision Act, ZAG).
Ausgabe einer Debitkarte: Alternatively: Debitkarte:. Der Zahlungsdienstleister stellt eine Zahlungskarte bereit, die mit dem Konto des Kunden verknüpft ist. Der Betrag jeder Transaktion mit der Zahlungskarte wird direkt und in voller Höhe von dem Konto des Kunden abgebucht. The wording „Ausgabe“ is commonly used in Germany in connection with the service “Providing a debit card”. In addition, the PSD II and German law as well refer to such service with the term “Ausgabe” (see Article 69 (1) a) PSD II and Section 675m para. 1 of the German Civil Code, BGB). In the illustrative example of the FID the EBA provided in the CP (page 29) the EBA itself uses the term “1 debit card” in the first table “Packages of Services”. At any case, as indicated in the proposed Annex for Austria, the correct German spelling of “Debitkarte” instead of “Debitcard” must be used.
Ausgabe einer Kreditkarte: Alternatively: Kreditkarte: Der Zahlungsdienstleister oder ein sonstiger Kreditkartenanbieter stellt eine Zahlungskarte bereit, die mit dem Konto des Kunden verknüpft ist. Der Gesamtbetrag der Transaktionen mit der Zahlungskarte innerhalb eines vereinbarten Zeitraums wird zu einem bestimmten Termin in voller Höhe oder teilweise von dem Konto des Kunden abgebucht. In einer Vereinbarung zwischen dem Kunden und dem Zahlungsdienstleister oder dem sonstigen Kreditkartenanbieter wird festgelegt, ob und welche Entgelte und/oder Zinsen dem Kunden hierfür berechnet werden.The wording „Ausgabe“ is commonly used in Germany in connection with the service “Providing a credit card”. In addition, the PSD II and German law as well refer to such service with the term “Ausgabe” (see Article 69 (1) a) PSD-II and Section 675m para. 1 of the German Civil Code, BGB). Further, the contractual relationships regarding the issuance of credit cards may vary and may also include the issuance by other credit card providers. The definition of the service should therefore be open to all possible variations.
Eingeräumte Kontoüberziehung: Der Zahlungsdienstleister und der Kunde vereinbaren im Voraus, dass der Kunde sein Konto belasten kann, auch wenn kein Guthaben mehr auf dem Konto vorhanden ist. In der Vereinbarung wird festgelegt, bis zu welcher Höhe das Konto in diesem Fall belastet werden kann und ob und welche Entgelte und/oder Zinsen dem Kunden berechnet werden. The term „Kontoüberziehung“ is rather general in the German language and refers to both the use of an overdraft facility as well as overrunning (see Article 3 d) and e) of Directive 2008/48/EC on credit agreements for consumers). Without further context it is therefore misleading. For purposes of distinction between these services, the wording has to be adjusted. Directive 2008/48/EC as well as German law refer to overdraft facilities with the term “Eingeräumte Überziehungsmöglichkeit” (see Article 12 of Directive 2008/48/EC and Section 504 of the German Civil Code, BGB).
Überweisung: Der Zahlungsdienstleister übermittelt auf Anweisung des Kunden einen bestimmten oder zum Zeitpunkt der Ausführung bestimmbaren Geldbetrag von dem Konto des Kunden auf ein anderes Konto.The wording for “Überweisung” (credit transfer) should match the wording for „Dauerauftrag“ (standing order; see below) because standing orders are only a sub-category of credit transfers (see also No 4 of the Annex I to the PSD II).
Dauerauftrag:Der Zahlungsdienstleister übermittelt auf Anweisung des Kunden regelmäßig einen bestimmten oder zum Zeitpunkt der Ausführung bestimmbaren Geldbetrag vom Konto des Kunden auf ein anderes Konto. See above.
Lastschrift: Der Kunde ermächtigt einen Zahlungsempfänger den Zahlungsdienstleister anzuweisen, zu einem oder mehreren zwischen dem Kunden und dem Zahlungsempfänger vereinbarten Termin(en) das Konto des Kunden mit einem bestimmten oder bestimmbaren Geldbetrag zu belasten.The wording ”eine andere Person (Empfänger)” suggests that only natural persons could be the recipient of the permission of the consumer/customer. According to the PSD II the recipient can be a natural or legal person. Therefore the definition should be neutral and only refer to the recipient. Furthermore, the definition of the German versions of Article 2 no. 19 PAD and Article 4 no. 23 PSD II should be taken into account.
Bargeldauszahlung: Der Kunde hebt Bargeld von seinem Konto ab. The wording „Auszahlung“ is commonly used in Germany in connection with the service “Cash withdrawal”. In addition, the PSD-II and German law as well refer to such service with the term “Auszahlung” (see Article 69 (1) a) PSD-II, Section 1 para. 2 no. 1 of the Payment Services Supervision Act, ZAG).
For further details see our additonal comments (separate e-mail)."
Question 5: Do you consider the FID template that is being proposed in the draft ITS and its Annex to be suitable to achieve the aims of the Directive? Please explain your reasoning.
Pursuant to the provision of Article 4(6) of the PAD, the EBA was tasked to propose a “standardised presentation format”. While the PAD refers to general criteria on format in relation to the FID (for example referring to characters of a readable size), in the draft ITS, the EBA defines an unprecedented level of details of the FID. For instance, it attempts to set requirements regarding the format (including setting the page orientation as portrait), the required font type as well as font sizes, the location of the page number and the required line spacing. We feel that the industrial cost needed to meet these requirements is disproportionate in relation to the benefits for consumers stemming therefrom. Our position is therefore that the EBA should allow for (more) flexibility regarding the format of the FIDA few points that, in our view, need to be improved are the following:
• We believe that the date of the FID should be included. Prices are regularly adjusted. It is thus necessary to ensure that the FID is up to date and the consumer receives the correct data along with a temporal frame of reference.
• In the Annex as well as the title of Article 4 of the draft ITS on the FID, “Name of the Account provider” should be changed to “Name of the payment service provider (see Article 2 no 7 PAD).
• Recital 8, Article 10 and the last table in in the Annex should be deleted. Article 4 of the PAD does not provide for the FID to include key indicators. According to Recital 19 of the PAD the “Member States may require key indicators such as a comprehensive cost indicator […] to be provided […] with the fee information document”. Furthermore the comprehensive cost indicator is only one example of possible key indicators. Therefore, if not deleted, in the Annex as well as in Recital 8 and Art. 10, the wording “Comprehensive cost indicator” should be changed to “Key indicator”.
• If not deleted in Recital 8 the wording “in the fee information document” should be changed to “with the fee information document” to match the exact wording of Recital 19 of the PAD.
• Article 4 (2) (g) of the PAD requires the FID template to include a statement that the FID contains fees for the most representative services related to the payment account and that complete pre-contractual and contractual information on all the services is provided in other documents. The proposed wording of the introductory statement goes beyond these requirements. There is no legal basis to provide for an obligation of the payment service provider to name or refer to such documents. Article 6 (2) and the respective square brackets in the Annex should therefore be deleted.
• Furthermore the proposed wording also obliges PSPs to inform consumers in the FID template that a glossary is available free of charge. The PAD does not entail any of these additional information requirements. The PAD has set a clear legal framework. It should, therefore, be respected when drafting the FID template, meaning that the introduction of new (additional) information obligations is not legally feasible.
• The requirement to present fee information in A 4 portrait format (Article 1 (2) (a)), should be reviewed in the light of digitalisation/digital communication with clients. The pre-contractual information requirement can, for example, also be met by way of on-screen information (not necessarily in A 4 format). The use of the template should therefore be less restrictive, as its application in paper format is expected to and should reduce abruptly in the near future. Actually, comparability might prove to be more difficult to achieve given the proposed limitations regarding the format as well as the all-encompassing process of digitisation. In order to ensure that customers are properly informed, digital platforms and ex-ante online communications via different channels (computers, tablets, mobile phones and so on) should be promoted. We do however welcome it that the EBA decided not to add grid lines
• The requirements concerning the font size (for example in Article 1 (2) (a)), should be more flexible. A minimum font size would also ensure the use of characters of a readable size. This is also likely to help reduce the number of pages.
• In communication with clients, the corporate logo is in practice placed at both sides of the document, at the top right-hand side or top left-hand side of the document. To ensure also in future that the client can immediately see who is sending the information, the mandatory requirement to place the “common symbol” at the top right-hand side of the document (Article 1 (2) (b)) should be dropped (freedom of choice for payment services provider). Article 4 (2) (f) only requires the common symbol to be at the top of the first page next to the title.
• In addition, it should be made clear in the delegated act that, to save paper, both the front and back of a page may be used for printing (“duplex printing”).
• The PAD does not require to display the total annual costs in the FID. Therefore all provisions requiring PSPs to include total annual costs should be deleted (Article 7(2); Art. 8(1)).
• It should be clarified that in section overdrafts and related services" interest rates have to be displayed."
• We welcome the fact that according to Article 7 (6) of the draft ITS the table “package of services” can be deleted if such a package of services is not offered with the account or is charged as part of the fee for any general account services. Article 9 “Additional information” should clarify that this table in the FID template can also be deleted if the payment service provider holding the account does not report any services and fees here."
Question 6: Do you consider the common symbol in the FID template that is being proposed in the draft ITS and its Annex suitable to achieve the aims of the Directive? Please explain your reasoning.
• The common symbol on the document is in the same place where some payment services providers typically put their own corporate logos (for more detail please refer to our answer to question 5).• In branches it is not always possible to print in colour. However, it is common practice to feed printers with a letterhead, which already includes the bank logo in colour. We would therefore suggest softening the requirement set out in paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the relevant ITS: Taking into account the wide diversity of printing equipment available, the constraints in terms of print quality of the document (colour versus black and white) should be reduced in cases of printing at a branch or a banking terminal. Namely, we believe that a document’s readability and distinctiveness will be ensured even if the document is printed with a common symbol displayed in black and white, should the logo of the PSP be printed in colour. Therefore, we would like to suggest that more flexibility is afforded regarding these symbols and particularly that they could be displayed in black and white even if the logo of the PSP is printed in colour. It should be clarified which reference code of the RGB colour model is to be used for the common symbol if printed in colour.
• Concerning the SoF, it would be of great benefit to consumers and payment service providers alike if it could be provided to the consumer via a bank statement printer. This is impossible if the symbol consists of drawings. We therefore strongly recommend that the symbol be made up of letters (e.g. EU – SoF). To ensure similarity between the FID and the SoF, we would recommend the same for the common symbol in the FID template (eg. EU-FID).
Question 7: Do you consider the proposed instructions for the completion of the FID template contained in Articles 2 to 11 of the draft ITS, to be suitable to achieve the aims of the Directive? Please explain your reasoning.
We welcome Recital 4 of the Implementing Regulation, stating that the FID should be easily produced by payment service providers and that there should be clear instructions for them on how to complete the FID.To a large extent, the instructions set out in Articles 2 to 11 achieve this aim. Still, there are a few points that need clarification:
• The currency in which the fees are indicated should be displayed using the ISO code, (i.e. not using the € symbol like in the example on page 29 f).
• In some countries banking fees are partly subject to taxes. It should therefore be explicitly mentioned in the draft ITS that, if applicable, taxes shall be included in the fees displayed.
•
• Article 2: It should be made clear in the delegated act that, to save paper, both the front and back of a page may be used for printing (“duplex printing”).
• Article 3 “Logo of the payment service provider”:
• In communication with clients, the corporate logo is in practice placed at both sides of the document, at the top right-hand side or top left-hand side of the document. To ensure also in future that the client can immediately see who is sending the information, the mandatory requirement to place the “common symbol” at the top right-hand side of the document (Article 1 (2) (b)) should be dropped. (freedom of choice for payment services provider).
• It is our understanding that the box currently included in the FID template in the upper left corner is only a placeholder and that the logo does not need to be framed by this box. This would be impossible in many cases. This would not be possible because many logos have a different format. Further we feel that the obligation stipulating that the same requirements regarding size (a square no larger than 2.5 cm x 2.5 cm) apply to both to the common symbol and to the logo of a PSP is too limiting. While a precise printing surface may be defined for the common symbol, the visual identity of certain PSPs, contingent heavily upon their respective logos, would often hardly fit into a square of this size. We would therefore like to suggest that these requirements be adjusted to become less restrictive.
• Article 4: In the title of Article 4 as well as in the annex, “account provider” should be replaced by “payment service provider”.
• Article 10: If not deleted (please refer to our answer to question 5) in the title of Article 10, Recital 8 and in the Annex “Comprehensive cost indicator” should be replaced by “Key indicator” as according to Recital 19 of the PAD the comprehensive cost indicator is only one example of possible key indicators.
• Article 11 “Brand names”: before the word “starting”, “if possible” should be inserted, as there might be (future) cases where the name of the service completely fills a line or a hyphenation of the first word of the brand name would be grammatically incorrect.
• Article 12 “Entry into force”: To ensure a concurrent entry into force with the PSD2 we suggest that the Regulation shall enter into force six months after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Question 8: Do you consider the proposed instructions for the completion of the FID template contained in Articles 2 to 11 of the draft ITS, to be clear and easy to follow? Please explain your reasoning.
Please see our reply to question 7.Question 9: Do you consider the SoF template that is being proposed in draft ITS and its Annex to be suitable to achieve the aims of the Directive? Please explain your reasoning.
On the format, we would like to firstly reiterate our position that we expressed above (regarding the FID, please refer to our answer to Question 5). Namely, we feel that when preparing the SoF template, the EBA has overstepped the limits of its mandate.We would like to once again propose that more leeway is afforded with respect to the format of the SoF for the reasons described in our answer to Question 5. Furthermore, we would like to reiterate our concerns on digital versions of the SoF not having been foreseen, thereby not properly taking into account the process of digitisation. Therefore, the requirements to provide the SoF as a document of an A4 format appears neither to be adapted to the diversity of today’s possibilities with regard to different media channels, nor is it necessary to ensure that the consumer has received all information required to make sound decisions.
A few points that, in our view, need to be improved are the following:
• Payment Service Providers should be free to include a date so that, in the event of any subsequent queries by the client, it is clear to which document the client is referring. Article 1 (3) should be amended accordingly.
• Recital 3: In the phrase “expressed in the currency of the payment account, or in another currency of the Union”, the words “of the Union” should be deleted to match the exact wording of the PAD.
• Recital 6, Art. 10(4) and the respective table in the SoF template (“Key cost indicator” under Summary of fees and interest) should be deleted. The reference to Recital 19 of the PAD is not correct for the SoF. Recital 19 of the PAD states that “Member States should be able to require key indicators such as a comprehensive cost indicator summarising the overall annual cost of the payment account for consumers to be provided with the fee information document.” Recital 19 does not state that Member States should be able to require key indicators such as a comprehensive cost indicator to be provided in the statement of fees.
• A4 portrait format: It would be of great benefit to consumers and payment service providers alike if the SoF could be provided to the consumer via a bank statement printer. This is not possible if it is mandatory to display it in A4 portrait format. We therefore suggest an exemption from this format if the payment service provider and the consumer agree that the SoF can be provided via a bank statement printer.
• Different colour patterns for headings and sub-headings, strict requirements on font type and font size: These requirements would also prevent payment service providers from providing the SoF via a bank statement printer, so we suggest an exemption if the payment service provider and the consumer agree that the SoF can be provided via a bank statement printer.
• Under “Detailed statement of fees paid on the account”, in the first heading “Number of times the fee was charged” should be changed to “Number of times the service was used” to match the exact wording of the PAD (Article 5 (2) (a).
According to the current draft, payment service providers should specify which services are included in a package of services. This is not required by the PAD and should therefore be deleted. This concerns the table “Detail of the fees included in the package of services” as well as the table “Detailed statement of fees paid on the account”.
Question 10: Do you consider the common symbol that is being proposed in the draft ITS and its Annex to be suitable to achieve the aims of the Directive? Please explain your reasoning.
Please see our reply to question 6.• Furthermore, concerning the SoF, it would be of great benefit to consumers and payment service providers alike if it could be provided to the consumer via a bank statement printer. This is impossible if the symbol consists of drawings. We therefore strongly recommend that the symbol be made up of letters (e.g. EU – SoF).
• In branches it is not always possible to print in colour. However, it is common practice to feed printers with a letterhead, which already includes the bank logo in colour. We would therefore suggest softening the requirement set out in paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the relevant ITS: Taking into account the wide diversity of printing equipment available, the constraints in terms of print quality of the document (colour versus black and white) should be reduced in cases of printing at a branch or a banking terminal. Namely, we believe that a document’s readability and distinctiveness will be ensured even if the document is printed with a common symbol displayed in black and white, should the logo of the PSP be printed in colour. Therefore, we would like to suggest that more flexibility is afforded regarding these symbols and particularly that they could be displayed in black and white even if the logo of the PSP is printed in colour. It should be clarified which reference code of the RGB colour model is to be used for the common symbol if printed in colour.
Question 11: Do you consider the proposed instructions for payment services providers on how to complete the SoF template contained in Articles 2 to 16 of the draft ITS, to be suitable to achieve the aims of the Directive? Please explain your reasoning.
We welcome Recital 7 of the Implementing Regulation, stating that the SoF should be easily produced by payment services providers and that there should be clear instructions for them on how to complete the SoF.To a large extent, the instructions set out in Articles 2 to 16 achieve this aim. Still, there are a few points that need clarification or could be improved:
• The currency in which the fees are indicated should be displayed using the ISO code (i.e. not using the € symbol like in the example on page 37).
• In some countries banking fees are partly subject to taxes. It should therefore be explicitly mentioned in the draft ITS that, if applicable, taxes shall be included in the fees displayed.
• Given the fact that reductions/discounts will be difficult to indicate in the SoF (except at the bottom of the document under the heading “Additional information”), we would suggest, that they could alternatively appear in lines immediately following the line where fees are disclosed. We suggest the choice of this to be left with PSPs.
• Article 2: It should be made clear in the delegated act that, to save paper, both the front and back of a page may be used for printing (“duplex printing”).
• Article 3: “Logo of the payment service provider”:
• In communication with clients, the corporate logo is in practice usually placed at both sides of the document, at the top right-hand side or top left-hand side of the document of the document. To ensure also in future that the client can immediately see who is sending the information, the mandatory requirement to place the “common symbol” at the top right-hand side of the document (Article 1 (2) (b)) should be dropped (freedom of choice for payment services provider).
• It is our understanding that the box currently included in the FID template in the upper left corner is only a placeholder and that the logo does not need to be framed by this box. This would be impossible in many cases. This would not be possible because many logos have a different format. Further we feel that the obligation stipulating that the same requirements regarding size (a square no larger than 2.5 cm x 2.5 cm) apply to both to the common symbol and to the logo of a PSP is too limiting. While a precise printing surface may be defined for the common symbol, the visual identity of certain PSPs, contingent heavily upon their respective logos, would often hardly fit into a square of this size. We would therefore like to suggest that these requirements be adjusted to become less restrictive.
• In the Annex as well as the title of Article 4 of the draft ITS on the SoF “account provider” should be replaced by “payment service provider”
• Article 6: Introductory statement: Unlike Article 4 (2) (g) of the PAD, which states that the FID must “include a statement that it contains fees for the most representative services related to the payment account and that complete pre-contractual and contractual information on all the services is provided in other documents”, there is no requirement in Article 5 (2) or (3) of the PAD for the SoF to include any introductory statement. The additional information called for in the introductory statement in the draft ITS might be desirable from the consumer’s viewpoint. Nevertheless, the EBA has to accept the clear legal framework set by the PAD and should draft the SoF template within this legal framework and not implement new information obligations.
• Article 10 (2) and (3) should be deleted. There is no legal basis in the PAD to provide for the SoF to contain such information. Article 10 (2) and (3) and Article 14 (4) last sentence, (5) and (7) of the draft ITS state that if interest during the period covered by the SoF amounts to zero, this should be indicated by using “0” or “interest not applicable”. This requirement goes beyond the requirements set under the PAD (Article 5 (2)), which states that only the total amount of interest “charged” and total amount of interest “earned” have to be displayed in the SoF.
• Article 10 (4) should be deleted. According to Recital 19 of the PAD Member States should be able to require key indicators such as a comprehensive cost indicator summarising the overall annual cost of the payment account for consumers to be provided with the fee information document. Key indicators are not required to be provided in the SoF and also the PAD does not encourage Member States to introduce such an obligation.
• Article 12 (10) states that “where a sub-heading does not contain any service and/or fee …, payment service providers shall delete that subheading”. It should be clarified that the entire table must be deleted if it does not contain any services and/or fees.
• Article 13: The wording “paid on the account” should be replaced by “charged to the account” to match the wording of the PAD (Art. 5 (2) (c)).
• Article 13 (3): After “expressed in the currency of the account”, the wording “or, if agreed by the consumer and the payment service provider, in another currency” should be inserted. Article 5 (3) of the PAD is not restricted to fees but applies also to interest.
• Article 13 refers to interest paid on the account. Therefore, para. 5, which refers to interest earned on the account (see also Section 4.5.2, no. 126 of the Consultation Paper), is misplaced and should be deleted.
• Article 13 (5) new: “Where no interest was charged relating to the overdraft during the relevant period payment service providers shall delete the entire table.” It should be clarified that if no interest is applicable to the account or no interest was charged in the relevant period the entire tables should be deleted. An information that interest is not applicable is not required by the PAD and also contradicts the goals of the directive. It has no additional benefit for the consumer. The PAD also states that only the overdraft interest rate applied to the account needs to be contained in the SoF. We therefore suggest to redraft Art. 13 (5) as follows: “Where no interest was charged relating to the overdraft during the relevant period payment service providers shall delete the entire table and also the respective table under summary of fees and interest”.
• Article 14 (4): After “expressed in the currency of the account”, the wording “or, if agreed by the consumer and the payment service provider, in another currency” should be inserted. Article 5 (3) (b) of the PAD is not restricted to fees but applies also to interest.
• Article 14 (4) last sentence, (5), (7): The PAD only requires that the SoF states the following: “the credit interest rate applied to the payment account and the total amount of interest earned during the relevant period, where applicable”. Art. 14(4) last sentence and Art. 14(5) and (7) should therefore be deleted. An information that interest is not applicable or amounts to zero in the relevant period is not required by the PAD and also contradicts the goals of the directive as it might even be misleading to the consumer. We therefore suggest to redraft Art. 14 (7) as follows: “Where a particular does not pay interest during the relevant period payment service providers shall delete the entire table and also the respective table under summary of fees and interest”.
• Article 14 (7) should be deleted (see above). Even if Article 14 (7) is not deleted for the reasons mentioned above it should be deleted because it is a duplication of Article 14 (5).
• Article 14 (7) new: Where a particular account does not pay interest during the relevant period payment service providers shall delete the entire table and also the respective table under summary of fees and interest”.
• Article 16 “Brand names”: before the word “starting”, “if possible” should be inserted, as there might be (future) cases where the name of the service completely fills a line or a hyphenation of the first word of the brand name would be grammatically incorrect.
• Article 17 “Entry into force”: To ensure a concurrent entry into force with the PSD2 we suggest that the Regulation shall enter into force six months after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Question 12: Do you consider the proposed instructions for payment service providers on how to complete the SoF template, contained in Articles 2 to 16 of the draft ITS, to be clear and easy to follow? Please explain your reasoning.
Please see our reply to question.11Please select which category best describes you and/or your organisation
[Non-financial, private sector institution"]"If you selected "Other", please provide details
The German Banking Industry Committee is the joint committee operated by the central associations of the German banking industry. These associations are the Bundesverband der Deutschen Volksbanken und Raiffeisenbanken (BVR), for the cooperative banks, the Bundesverband deutscher Banken (BdB), for the private commercial banks, the Bundesverband Öffentlicher Banken Deutschlands (VÖB), for the public banks, the Deutscher Sparkassen- und Giroverband (DSGV),for the savings banks finance group, and the Verband deutscher Pfandbriefbanken (vdp), for the Pfandbrief banks. Collectively, they represent approximately 1,700 banks.
Please select which category best describes the services provided by you/your organisation
[Other"]"If you selected "Other", please provide details
The German Banking Industry Committee is the joint committee operated by the central associations of the German banking industry. These associations are the Bundesverband der Deutschen Volksbanken und Raiffeisenbanken (BVR), for the cooperative banks, the Bundesverband deutscher Banken (BdB), for the private commercial banks, the Bundesverband Öffentlicher Banken Deutschlands (VÖB), for the public banks, the Deutscher Sparkassen- und Giroverband (DSGV),for the savings banks finance group, and the Verband deutscher Pfandbriefbanken (vdp), for the Pfandbrief banks. Collectively, they represent approximately 1,700 banks.