Response to consultation on Technical Standards on standardised terminology and disclosure documents under the PAD
Go back
As regards the overdraft and the credit card, the CCSF notes that these services are not directly linked to the operation of a payment account, due in particular to the obligation to sign a prior credit contract.
Consumer representative members of the CCSF consider that defining a service through the action of the professional is somewhat unclear for the consumer and too professional-oriented. A client-oriented approach would be preferable or, failing that, a neutral, objective approach. The technical banking mechanism matters less to the client than the outcome of the operation.
The CCSF thus suggests defining the services on the European list and the national list according to the method of a glossary or a dictionary, or as in the directive 2014/92/EU in Article 2, for example for definitions 19 and 20 where the direct debit and the credit transfer are payment services", or for definition 21 where the standing order is an "instruction".
Example: Extract from the glossary of the CCSF:
credit transfer: «operation by which ...»;
direct debit: "means of payment by which ..."
In 2010, the CCSF drew up with professionals from the financial sector and consumer associations a very comprehensive glossary on "everyday banking and credit", comprising 210 definitions.
(cf.: http://www.banque-france.fr/ccsf/fr/infos_prat/telechar/glossaire/glossaire-ccsf-operations-bancaires-courantes.pdf).
This glossary is part of a series of 5 glossaries aimed at financial service consumers (insurance, savings and financial products, long-term care insurance, loan insurance), which was widely distributed in paper format by consumer associations and made available online on a very large number of banking and associative sites.
These 5 glossaries (a total of close to 600 definitions) adopt a homogeneous objective method, favoring clarity, brevity and a non-legal language accessible to all, without neglecting when necessary an educational complement. For the purpose of clarity for the consumer, the 6 definitions of the French national list should retain this method of definition.
B/ As regards the wording used for the recitals and provisions of the draft RTS:
The CCSF has no comments to make, subject to the above comments."
A/ General remarks applicable to the whole document:
- Designation of the professional: l’établissement qui fournit le compte" is not a correct expression in French, it is therefore not known to the consumer;
The CCSF suggests that it be substituted for either "l’établissement" or "l’établissement qui tient le compte". See infra in the new definitions;
- For the purpose of homogeneity, the terms should be presented in the same way, directly referring to the service under review and not to the act of making it available. We would therefore have: « tenue de compte- -carte de débit – carte de crédit – virement – prélèvement » etc.
B/ CCSF proposals of terms and definitions present on the draft French national list:
1. Maintaining the account: « L’établissement gère le compte du client ».
The notion of account used by the customer (« compte utilisé par le client ») should be deleted insofar as there are inactive accounts which are no longer used by the customer and for which account maintenance fees may nevertheless be charged.
2. Providing a debit card: « L’établissement fournit une carte de paiement liée au compte du client. Le montant de chaque opération effectuée à l’aide de cette carte est débité directement et intégralement sur le compte du client. »
(The account provider provides a payment card linked to the customer’s account. The amount of each transaction made using the card is debited (“débité”) directly and in full from the customer’s account)
The term “débité” is preferable to the term « prélevé » which refers to the « direct debit » defined further down.
3. Credit card: « L’établissement fournit une carte de paiement. Le montant total correspondant aux opérations effectuées à l’aide de cette carte au cours d’une période convenue est débité intégralement ou partiellement sur le compte du client ou une ligne de crédit ouverte au client à une date convenue. Lorsque le type de carte implique la conclusion d’un contrat de crédit entre l’établissement et le client, le contrat détermine si des intérêts seront facturés au client au titre du montant emprunté. »
The institution provides a payment card. The total amount corresponding to the transactions carried out using this card during an agreed period is fully or partially debited from the customer’s account or line of credit opened for the customer at an agreed date. When the type of card involves the conclusion of a credit contract between the institution and the customer, the contract determines whether interests will be invoiced to the customer in respect of the borrowed amount
4. Sending money: “L’établissement qui tient le compte transfère, sur instruction du client, une somme d’argent du compte du client vers un autre compte”.
5. Direct debit: « Opération par laquelle un tiers (appelé bénéficiaire) fait prélever sur le compte du client, à la date ou aux dates convenues avec lui, une somme d’argent dont le montant a préalablement été défini avec le client. Lorsqu’il s’agit d’un prélèvement récurrent, le montant concerné peut varier à chaque échéance. Préalablement, le client doit avoir autorisé (mandaté) le tiers (le bénéficiaire) à faire procéder à cette opération. »
(An operation where a third party (called the recipient) debits from the client's account, on the date or dates agreed upon with him, a sum of money previously defined with the customer.
In the case of a recurrent transfer, the amount concerned may vary at each installment.
The client must previously have authorised the third party (the recipient) to carry out this operation).
6. Cash withdrawal: (unchanged): “The customer takes cash out of the customer’s account.”
CCSF proposals of terms and definitions not present on the draft French national list:
C/ although these terms are not on the French national list, the CCSF wished to make its proposals for the clarity of all:
7. “Découvert autorisé” (arranged overdraft): « L’établissement et le client conviennent à l’avance que le compte peut être débiteur pendant une durée maximale. Le contrat définit le montant maximum susceptible d’être emprunté et précise si des frais et des intérêts seront facturés au client. »
(The account provider and the customer agree in advance that the account may show a negative balance for a maximum period. The agreement determines a maximum amount that can be borrowed, and whether fees and interest will be charged to the customer.)
8. “Virement permanent” (Standing order): “L’établissement qui tient le compte effectue, sur instruction du client, des virements réguliers, d’un montant fixe, du compte du client vers un autre compte”.
The “ordre permanent" is not an expression used in France to refer to recurrent transfers. It covers, as the directive suggests in its definition 21 of Article 2, the instruction given by the customer, i.e., in the everyday French language, the setting up of the standing order. There is a confusion in the definition proposed by the EBA that would mislead the customer. Indeed, the performance by the account provider of regular transfers is referred to as “virement permanent”. These two different operations are also charged separately."
The Directive also provides that where one or more services are offered as part of a package of services linked to a payment account, the document provides detailed fee information on that package.
It also states in its recitals that the fee information document refers to “all services contained in the list of the most representative services linked to a payment account at national level”. It adds that this “fee information document should where applicable use the standardised terms and definitions established at Union level. This would also contribute to establishing a level playing field between payment service providers competing in the payment account market. The fee information document should not contain any other fees”. (Recital 19). Furthermore, it offers some flexibility to Member States by indicating that, for both the FID and the SoF: “when developing those formats, EBA should also take into account the fact that Member States may choose to provide the fee information document and the statement of fees together with information required pursuant to other Union or national legislative acts on payment accounts and related services” (Recital 20).
In view of the above, the CCSF would like to draw the attention of the EBA to the following points:
A/ -As regards the content of the document
1 / In order to ensure the short nature of this information document, identical for all customers and to meet the readability requirement imposed by the Directive, each payment service provider should only include the most marketed packaged product in the information document and list the other packaged products –customised - in the fees brochure.
Bankers and consumers alike agree that a succinct document is useful for making real comparisons and ensuring a simple understanding. They also agree that a document of more than 2 pages does not make it possible to fulfill these two objectives of a short and clear document.
The French market for packaged services has been monitored since 2011 each year in a specific chapter of the annual report of the Observatory of Banking Fees of the CCSF (see on Annex). The following points emerge:
Payment service providers offer on average 5.5 packaged products (with a maximum of 14 for the same institution), 3.5 of which correspond to competing commercial offers and 2 of which have a uniform content and a target clientele defined by law.
In addition, 81% of banks offer one or more packages of services that are customisable or semi-customisable. Note that the degree of customisation varies greatly from one bank to another, with the base containing an average of 7.50 services, with potentially up to 18 options.
In this context, the fee information document would be substantially lengthened if it were to include each one of the customised packaged products as described above. [By way of illustration, the CCSF appends an example – see annex - of what this document might constitute; it would cover several pages, without necessarily guaranteeing the completeness of the information.] Moreover, such an interpretation of the directive is likely to encourage payment service provider providers to stop offering customised services, which nevertheless meets some customers’ requirements and one of the concerns expressed by consumers and mentioned in the recitals of Directive 2014/92. It points out that « payment service providers may offer payment accounts packaged with products not requested by consumers which are not essential for payment accounts” (recital 24). Customising packaged products is a way of avoiding such a pitfall.
The CCSF therefore proposes that the ITS give payment service providers the possibility, when several distinct customised packaged products are linked to a payment account, of including only the central, most marketed product, which includes core services. The addition of the reference to the fees brochure which presents all the packaged products with the possible customisations, should be included in the FID in order to fully inform the consumer, while enabling him to compare payment service providers’ practices in terms of packaged products.
2/ As regards the particulars that must appear in the document, the date of fees application should be inserted (for example: “As for July 1st 2017”). Fees are regularly adjusted. It is therefore necessary to ensure that this FID is updated.
B/ -As regards the standardised presentation rules
The objective of Directive 2014/97 as regards this fee information document, the presentation of which is standardised at European Union level, is to guarantee both full consumer information and easy and effective comparability between the services offered by the various EU payment service providers.
Such transparency and comparability requirements already apply to payment service providers in France. This is done notably by means of a fees’ brochure which providers are required to make available to consumers, online and in branches. The standardisation of the presentation of this document has led to the definition of a standard table of contents, an organisation of the different headings, information rules applicable to each type of fee (unit, package, etc.) and has imposed inserting a standard extract of fees at the beginning of the document, which presents the fees of the 11 services on the national list. The standard has not, however, defined the character size, the font used or the format of the document.
In this respect, it appears necessary that the information provided be geared to any medium (paper or electronic, where appropriate on a computer, tablet or telephone), and to the evolutions thereof. Thus, the provision of a document on an A4 format does not appear to be suited to the diversity of these media, nor is it required to guarantee the full information of the consumer. In this regard, mention may be made of the customised pre contractual information sheet, the template of which has been defined and harmonised at European Union level, in consumer credit and real estate credit, respectively by Directives 2008/48 and 2014/17. The drawing up of these two templates has not been accompanied by any prescription regarding the format of the document.
Incidentally, the CCSF wishes to recall the provisions of the directive 2014/17/EU, in particular the recital 20: “when developing those formats, EBA should also take into account the fact that Member States may choose to provide the fee information document and the statement of fees together with information required pursuant to other Union or national legislative acts on payment accounts and related services”. This recital suggests that the FID whose standardizes template is laid down by EBA, should be produced and provided in a format compatible with other information which must be provided together. In France, this is for example the fees’ brochure which payment service providers are required to make available for consumers, online and in branches, as mentioned above.
The CCSF therefore proposes that the ITS provide a sufficiently flexible format, including in terms of font, column size, spacing, etc., in order to remain readable despite the richness of certain contents and irrespective of the medium, in particular electronic, as French clients mostly use their mobile, tablet or computer to carry out their banking operations.
Annex
Document d'information tarifaire
Name of the account provider:
Account name:
* This document informs you about the fees for using the main services linked to the payment account. It will help you to compare these fees with those of other accounts.
* Fees may also apply for using services linked to the account which are not listed here. Full information is available in [to be inserted by provider - names of the relevant pre-contractual and contractual documents].
* A glossary of the terms used in this document is available free of charge
Offres groupée de services Tarif
JAZZ
Contenu de l'offre :
- 1 carte de paiement V PAY mensuel : 7,70€
- choix du code secret de la carte coût total annuel : 92,40 €
- remplacement de la carte suite
au blocage pour perte, vol ou
utilisation frauduleuse
- cotisation à une offre
d'assurance perte ou vol des
moyens de paiement (Quietis)
- relevé de compte classé par
type d'opérations
- 1 chèque de banque par an
- oppositions sur chèques pour
perte ou vol
- révocations de mandat de
prélèvement SEPA
- 1 facilité de caisse (à partir de
18 ans)
- 1 forfait d'exonération d'intérêts
débiteurs (pour les 18-24 ans)
- exonération des frais de tenue
de compte actif
- 1 carte de paiement Visa mensuel : 8,35€
ou Mastercard coût total annuel : 100,20 €
- choix du code secret de la carte
- remplacement de la carte suite
au blocage pour perte, vol ou
utilisation frauduleuse
- 1 forfait mensuel de retrait
d'espèces aux distributeurs de
billets hors SG et CDN
- cotisation à une offre
d'assurance perte ou vol des
moyens de paiement (Quietis)
- relevé de compte classé par
type d'opérations
- 1 chèque de banque par an
- oppositions sur chèques pour
perte ou vol
- révocations de mandat de
prélèvement SEPA
- 1 facilité de caisse (à partir de
18 ans)
- 1 forfait d'exonération d'intérêts
débiteurs (pour les 18-24 ans)
- 1 carte de paiement Visa 1er mensuel : 15,95€
ou Gold Mastercard
coût total annuel : 191,40 €
- choix du code secret de la carte
- remplacement de la carte suite
au blocage pour perte, vol ou
utilisation frauduleuse
- cotisation à une offre
d'assurance perte ou vol des
moyens de paiement (Quietis)
- relevé de compte classé par
type d'opérations
- 1 chèque de banque par an
- oppositions sur chèques pour
perte ou vol
- révocations de mandat de
prélèvement SEPA
- 1 facilité de caisse (à partir de
18 ans)
- 1 forfait d'exonération d'intérêts
débiteurs (pour les 18-24 ans)
- 1 carte de paiement Visa Infinite mensuel : 30,85€
- choix du code secret de la carte coût total annuel : 370,20 €
- remplacement de la carte suite
au blocage pour perte, vol ou
utilisation frauduleuse
- cotisation à une offre
d'assurance perte ou vol des
moyens de paiement (Quietis)
- relevé de compte classé par
type d'opérations
- 1 chèque de banque par an
- oppositions sur chèques pour
perte ou vol
- révocations de mandat de
prélèvement SEPA
- 1 facilité de caisse (à partir de
18 ans)
- 1 forfait d'exonération d'intérêts
débiteurs (pour les 18-24 ans)
Options JAZZ
Option Tranquilité
Contenu de l'offre :
- Service Opposition toutes cartes mensuel : 0,65€
- Service Mémoire et assurance coût total annuel : 7,80 €
Garantie Prix
Option Souplesse
Contenu de l'offre :
- Forfait d'exonération d'intérêts mensuel : 3,20€
débiteurs coût total annuel : 38,40 €
- frais de lettre d'information pour
compte débiteurs non autorisé
- 1 assurance décès accidentel
Option Alerte SMS
Contenu de l'offre :
- abonnement à un produit mensuel : 2,15€
offrant des alertes de la situation coût total annuel : 25,80 €
du compte par SMS
Option internationale
Contenu de l'offre :
- Exonération des commissions mensuel : 10,00€
SG sur 6 paiements par carte et coût total annuel : 120,00 €
2 retraits hors zone € par mois
(niveau Initial)
- Exonération des commissions mensuel : 17,50€
SG sur tous les paiements par coût total annuel : 210,00 €
carte et tous les retraits hors
zone € (niveau Intense)
- Exonération des commissions mensuel : 25,00€
SG sur tous les paiements et tous coût total annuel : 300,00 €
les retraits par carte et tous les
virements non SEPA
(internationaux) émis ou reçus
(niveau Illimité)
- Exonération des commissions mensuel : 5,00€
SG sur tous les paiements par coût total annuel : 60,00 €
carte et tous les retraits hors
zone € (niveau Etudiants
GENERIS : offre destinée aux mensuel : 3,00€
clients en situation de fragilité coût total annuel : 36,00 €
financière
Contenu de l'offre :
- ouverture, tenue, fermeture
du compte
- 1 carte V PAY
- dépôts retraits d'espèces dans
l'agence qui tient le compte
- 1 virement permanent SEPA
initié en agence par mois
- virements occasionnels et
permanents illimités via internet
- paiement par TIP SEPA et
prélèvements SEPA illimités
- 3 chèques de banques par mois
- accès illimité à l'espace sécurisé
internet
- 1 alerte par SMS dès que le
solde du compte passe sous le
seuil de 100 €
Service Bancaire de Base GRATUIT
Ensemble de services bancaires
fournis dans le cadre du droit au
compte prévu par l'article L312-1
du code monétaire et financier
Service Tarif
Services liés au compte
Tenue de compte mensuel : 2,00 €
coût total annuel : 24,00 €
Abonnement à des services de GRATUIT
banque à distance (internet)
Abonnement à un produit offrant mensuel : 3,65€
des alertes de la situation du coût total annuel : 43,80 €
compte par SMS (Messalia)
Paiements (hors cartes de paiement)
Virement en agence : 3,80 €
par internet : GRATUIT
(cas d'un virement SEPA occasionnel)
Prélèvement SEPA
- Frais de mise en place d'un GRATUIT
mandat de prélèvement
- Frais par paiement d'un GRATUIT
prélèvement
Cartes de paiement et retraits d'espèces
Fourniture de la carte de paiement coût total annuel : 44,50 €
internationale à debit immédiat (Carte Visa ou MasterCard)
Fourniture de la carte de paiement coût total annuel : 44,50 €
internationale à debit différé (Carte Visa ou MasterCard)
Fourniture de la carte de paiement coût total annuel : 35,00 €
à autorisation systématique (Carte V PAY)
Retrait d'espèces par retrait : 1,00 €
A un DAB d'une autre banque, à partir du 4ème
retrait par mois
(cas d'un retrait en euro dans la zone euro avec une
carte de paiement internationale) - carte Visa ou
MasterCard
Autres services
Commission d'intervention par opération : 8,00 €
avec un plafond de 80 € par mois
Cotisation à une offre d'assurance coût total annuel : 30,00 €
perte ou vol des moyens de
paiement (Quiétis)
Information complémentaire
Service Tarif
Cotisation annuelle carte 135,00 €
Visa Premier ou Gold Mastercard
(à débit immédiat ou différé)
Cotisation annuelle carte 330,00 €
Visa Infinite
(à débit immédiat ou différé)
Choix du code secret de la carte 10,00 €
Remplacement de la carte suite 16,00 €
au blocage pour perte, vol ou
utilisation frauduleuse
Forfait mensuel de retrait gratuit 3
dans un DAB hors agences Société Générale
ou Crédit du Nord
Carte Visa ou Mastercard hors JAZZ
Relevé de compte classé par type coût total annuel : 16,00 €
d'opérations
Frais d'émission d'un chèque de
14,00 €
banque
Frais d'opposition sur chèques 12,50 €
pour perte ou vol
Frais de révocation d'un mandat 12,50 €
de prélèvement
Service opposition toutes cartes coût total annuel : 18,00 €
Service Garantie prix coût total annuel : 22,00 €
Forfait d'exonération d'intérêts coût total annuel : 38,00 €
débiteurs + assurance décès
accidentel + frais de mise en
opposition sur chèques perdus ou
volés (PIANO)
Minimum forfaitaire d'intérêts coût total annuel : 23,20 €
débiteurs
Frais de lettre d'information pour 15,00 €
compte débiteur non autorisé
Frais par retrait à un distibuteur frais fixe 3,00 €
automatique de billet hors zone € frais variable (carte Infinite) 2,00 %
frais variable (autres cartes) 2,00 %
Frais par paiement par carte frais fixe (paiement > 10€) 1,00 €
hors zone € frais variable (carte Infinite) 2,00 %
frais variable (autres cartes) 2,00 %
Frais par virement non SEPA Internet
(international) émis virement <= 500 € 9,00 €
virement > 500 € 13,00 €
Agence
virement <= 500 € 13,00 €
virement > 500 € 26,00 €
Frais par virement non SEPA virement <= 150 € GRATUIT
(international) reçu
virement > 150 € 22,00 €
Annex
Extract from the 2016 Rapport de l’observatoire des tarifs bancaires
Chapter 4 Packaged services offers
Since 2011, analysis of packaged service offers (formerly known in French as bouquets de services" or "packages") in fee information documents has excluded both means of payment other than cheques and basic banking services related to the right to hold a basic bank account.
The analysis uses current prices; price changes should therefore be considered in relation to consumer price changes over the same period.
Since 2015, the Observatory has chosen to refocus its analysis on the offers of the 22 largest institutions in its sample, which represent a market share of 54%, as the extremely time-consuming study of 123 institutions carried out for the previous reports did not produce more relevant qualitative results. Given the weight of the main institutions offering this type of product, Sémaphore Conseil therefore focused its research on said main banks.
1| Offer trend
The analysis found that all of the banks on which it focused marketed at least one packaged service offer.
1|1 The number of packaged offers actually marketed is continuing to fall
Based on analysis of the fee information documents published by the sample banks between 31 December 2010 and 5 January 2016, there was a fall of nearly 30% in the number of offers marketed during that period. This downward trend, which began in 2011, flattened out in 2016 as the number of offers actually marketed has been stable since January 2015, at 77.
At the same time, the number of offers that are no longer marketed has started to rise again, from 53 in January 2014 and 69 in January 2015 to 73 in January 2016. Parity between marketed offers and non-marketed offers has therefore almost been reached.
In terms of breakdown, the number of packages actually marketed between January 2015 and January 2016 was unchanged at 86.36% of banks, down at 4.55% and up at 9.09%.
The slowing decline in the average number of offers actually marketed is attributable to the slowdown in the roll-out of new-generation offers, with the majority of banks having already renewed their offers in the previous period.
1|2 Offer renewal
Following the publication in July 2010 of the Pauget Constans report on banking service pricing, on 21 September 2010 the banking profession committed to improving information on packages by giving more content-related details in the fee information documents and when new account agreements are signed. The banks also announced that they would offer new generations of packages that were subject to open competition and better suited to their customers' individual needs.
The findings at 5 January 2016 confirmed that this commitment is borne out in reality, as had already been noted in previous years. Indeed, the average number of offers actually marketed by the banks remained stable at 3.5 at 5 January 2016 (and 5 January 2015), whereas it had been 4 in January 2014 and 4.14 in January 2013. This trend points to significant offer renewal, particularly through the increased marketing of new generations of personalised offers.
The maximum number of packages for a single bank, which was 11 from 5 July 2011 to 5 July 2014, increased to 12 in January 2015 and has not changed since.
1|3 The personalisation trend is continuing
As from 2012, a major banking institution revamped its package offering by significantly reducing its number of packages and marketing offers built around a core of essential services (account management, everyday transactions, cards, etc.) and à la carte options (overdraft, means of payment insurance, etc.) This major bank's action weighed significantly on all observed results, as, since then, many other banks have also based their offering on a smaller number of core services accompanied by customer-chosen options.
In January 2016, 81% of the sample banks (compared with 77% in 2014) were marketing one or more personalised or semi personalised packaged service offers, while 19% were marketing none. These two figures were unchanged from 2015.
However, it is notable that the degree of personalisation varies greatly between the banks: the core can contain up to 19 services (average 7.56), with the potential to add 18 options (average 5.76) on top. These figures have been the same since 2013.
Personalised packages mainly operate based on options or option groups.
The inclusion or not of a card in a packaged service offer, and the card type, are the most significant factors impacting pricing. In ten banks in 2015 and 2016, compared with nine in 2014, the pricing of options was governed by a price reduction system based on either the number of options selected or the revenue generated by the options chosen. However, no offer is completely personalised. Note that, of the packaged service offers launched between January 2015 and January 2016, three are semi personalised, compared with four in 2014 and 2015, which reflects the slowdown in the number of new launches.
1|4 Generally stable offer content
As seen above, the overall number of offers actually marketed remained unchanged from one year to the next for the first time since 2010.
Moreover, if we study the changes in more detail and exclude new offer launches, marketed offers have not seen any significant qualitative change since January 2015.
As in 2014, all the offers launched since January 2015 are personalised to varying degrees.
1|5 Offers for young customers
There was a further increase in the number of offers marketed to young customers (up 1.69% between January 2015 and January 2016, with 60 offers in 2015 compared with 59 in 2014) but the upward trend for this type of product continues to slow, with only one new offer recorded between 2015 and 2016.
These specific offers for young customers exist in 68% of the sample banks. As with the general offers, the degree of personalisation varies greatly, with up to 15 core services (average 4.8) and up to 16 options (average 2.83), which is one less than in January 2015.
2| The main price changes
For the various categories of packaged offers proposed by the 22 sample banks, including free offers, after two consecutive years of price decreases, average, minimum and maximum prices have now begun to trend up.
There was also an increase in the average annual minimum price of packages including a card but no options (+6.3%), the average annual maximum price of packages including a card but no options (excluding premium cards) (+5.44%) and the average annual maximum price of packages with neither card nor options (including premium cards) (+2.36%).
It should be stressed that the pricing methods and levels of service packages can vary greatly from one bank to the next, owing to a number of factors such as the inclusion or not of a card within the offer, the position in the range of the card included, the inclusion of a greater or lesser number of options and even the existence of reductions in proportion to the number of options chosen.
As an absolute value and excluding premium offers, the average annual price at 5 January 2016 ranged between EUR 76.82 and EUR 94.72 per year, compared with EUR 73.81 and EUR 93.73 per year, respectively, in December 2010.
2|1 Change in annual costs depending on the type of package
2|1|1 Quantitative change between 31 December 2010 and 5 January 2016
For the various categories of packaged offers that the sample banks market, there were three distinct price trends in the period between December 2010 and January 2016:
• The average annual price of packages with neither card nor options increased in 82.35% of cases;
• The average annual minimum and maximum prices of packages including a card but no options (excluding premium offers) also increased, in more than 70% of cases.
2|1|2 Quantitative change between 5 January 2015 and 5 January 2016
Over this shorter period, the results showed an increase in the annual price of packages with neither card nor options in 66.67% of cases, and an increase in the minimum and maximum prices in 50% of cases.
In addition, there was a very sharp decrease between 2010 and 2016 in the median prices of packages with neither card nor options.
The minimum and maximum prices of packages including a card but no options did not change between 2015 and 2016.
2|2 Offers for young customers
During the period under review, the minimum and maximum annual prices of packaged offers targeting young people showed contrasting trends.
In the period between 5 January 2015 and 5 January 2016, the average annual fee for packaged service offers with neither card nor options increased slightly by 0.48%, following sharp falls in 2015 (-11.43%) and 2014 (-28.23%).
By contrast, the minimum fees for offers including a card but no options decreased slightly by 1.38%, having risen significantly in the previous years.
2 – Tables and graphs section
Table 8 Change in the number of packaged offers
(% change)
31 December 2010 5 January
2015 5 January
2016 Trend between 31 Dec. 2010
and 5 January 2016 Change between 5 January 2015
and 5 January 2016 Trend
between 5 January 2015
and 5 January 2016
Marketed packaged service offers 109 77 77 ↓ 0.00
Packaged service offers listed in the fee information document but no longer marketed 37 69 73 ↑ 5.80 ↑
Total number of packaged service offers 146 146 151 3.42 ↑
Source: Sémaphore Conseil.
Table 9 Change in the number of offers per bank
(% change)
31 December 2010 5 January
2015 5 January
2016 Change between 31 Dec. 2010
and 5 January 2016 Trend
between 31 Dec. 2010
and 5 January 2016 Change between 5 January 2015
and 5 January 2016 Trend
between 5 January 2015
and 5 January 2016
Average number of offers per bank 4.95 3.50 3.50 - 29.36 ↓ 0.00
Maximum number of offers marketed by a bank 11.00 12.00 12.00 9.09 ↑ 0.00
Source: Sémaphore Conseil.
Table 10 Change in the number of options
(% change)
31 December 2010 5 January
2015 5 January
2016 Change
between 31 Dec. 2010
and 5 Jan. 2016 Trend
between 31 Dec. 2010
and 5 Jan. 2016 Change between
5 Jan. 2015 and
5 Jan. 2016 Trend between
5 Jan. 2015 and
5 Jan. 2016
Minimum number 1 1 1 0.00 0.00
Maximum number 14 23 23 64.29 ↑ 0.00
Average 3.19 3.63 3.63 13.83 ↑ - 0.04 ↓
Source: Sémaphore Conseil.
Table 11 Change in the number of offers for young customers
(% change)
31 Dec.
2010 5 Jan.
2015 5 Jan.
2016 Change between 31 Dec. 2010
and 5 January
2016 Trend
between 31 Dec. 2010
and 5 January
2016 Change between 5 January 2015
and 5 January
2016 Trend
between 5 January 2015
and 5 January 2016
Number of offers for young customers available in the fee information documents 48 59 60 25 ↑ 1.69 ↑
Source: Sémaphore Conseil.
Table 12
Average annual price of offers per offer type
(in EUR, % change)
31 December 2010 5 January
2015 5 January
2016 Change
between 31 Dec. 2010
and 5 January
2016 Trend between 31 December 2010
and 5 January
2016 Change
between 5 January 2015
and 5 January
2016 Trend
between 5 January 2015
and 5 January
2016
Annual price
of the offer with neither card nor options 86.80 66.37 68.17 - 21.46 ↓ 2.71 ↑
Minimum annual price
of the offer including card but no options, excluding premium offers 73.81 72.27 76.82 4.07 ↑ 6.30 ↑
Maximum annual price
of the offer including card but no options, excluding premium offers 93.73 89.83 94.72 1.06 ↑ 5.44 ↑
Maximum annual price
of the offer including card but no options,
including premium offers 334.48 336.99 344.93 3.13 ↑ 2.36 ↑
Source: Sémaphore Conseil.
Table 13
Average annual price of offers per offer type excluding free
As regards the proposed logo template and the instructions provided on its insertion, the CCSF reiterates its questions to the EBA on the justification of the requirement set out in Article 3 (2). Such a provision has serious consequences in terms of the publication process, without representing any gain for the consumer. The identification and readability of the information will be guaranteed even if a document is issued in which a colour company logo and a common symbol for the FID and the SoF in black and white coexist.
B/ on the ability to distinguish between the FID and SOF symbols
The CCSF regrets that the two common symbols – that of the FID and that of the SoF - are so similar and difficult to distinguish from one another. It suggests, for example, that the colours be reversed, one of the symbols having the yellow background and the other symbol having the blue background.
C/ on the consistency of the logo/symbol sizes
The CCSF approves of the desire for visual consistency between the institutions’ individual logos and the common symbol. However, as with the SOF, it considers that standardising the size of the institutions’ logos by imposing the use of the same square format as the common symbol does not meet the aims of the directive. This square format is incompatible with the rectangular logos used by many French institutions. Inserting their logos into this square will dramatically reduce their size and make them illegible to consumers, which is the opposite of the effect sought by the directive and unacceptable for the institutions: see example below.
The CCSF suggests allowing greater flexibility, by emphasising the idea of an overall balance, or equivalent surface area.
Template FID EBA
Fee Information Document
As for DATE
Name of the account provider:
Account name:
• This document informs you about the fees of using the main services linked to the account. It will help you to compare these fees with those of other accounts.
• Fees may also apply for using services linked to the account which are not listed here. Full information is available in [specify names of the relevant pre-contractual and contractual documents].
• The package of services proposed in this document is [……] (brand name). This package of services is a customizable product. Full information about the services which can be linked to this service is available in [specify names of the relevant pre-contractual and contractual documents]
• A glossary of the terms used in this document is available free of charge.
Service Fee
General account services
[●]
Includes a package of services consisting of:
Services beyond these quantities will be charged separately. The fees are listed below. [●]
Payments (excluding cards)
[●]
Cards and cash
[●]
Overdrafts and related services
[●]
Other services
[●]
Package of services Fee
Package consists of:
Services beyond these quantities will be charged separately. The fees are listed below.
This package of services is a customizable product. Please refer to [name of the relevant pre-contractual and contractual document [●]
Key cost indicator
[●]
Additional information
[●]
The directive specifies in its recitals that this statement enables a consumer to understand what fee expenditures relate to and to assess the need to either modify consumption patterns or move to another provider. It states that the same format, order of items and headings should be followed for every statement of fees in each Member State, allowing consumers to make comparisons. Furthermore, it offers some flexibility to Member States by indicating that, for both the FID and the SoF : “when developing those formats, EBA should also take into account the fact that Member States may choose to provide the fee information document and the statement of fees together with information required pursuant to other Union or national legislative acts on payment accounts and related services” (Recital 20).
In view of the above, the CCSF wishes to draw attention to the following points.
A/-as regards the content of the document
In order to comply with the readability requirement and the informative nature of this statement of fees, some changes should be made to the draft ITS submitted for public consultation.
1/ The difference between” services used” and “services charged “
The draft ITS (Arts 11 and 12) requires, for the summary of fees included in the packaged product subscribed by the consumer, as well as for that of each of the services linked to a payment account, that be specified the number of times that these different fees have been charged. This may prove to be completely inoperative in certain cases: for example in the case of flat-rate fees or capped fees. Incidentally, it does not comply with the Directive. Indeed, in accordance with Article 5 (1), the consumer must be informed of the number of times that the service was used during the period considered and not the number of times that the fees were invoiced. It is this specification, more relevant to the consumer, and in accordance with the text of the Directive, which must therefore be adopted.
For the consumer to be properly informed, it is important that the detail of the composition of the charged price, and in particular the discounts or retrocessions to the credit of the consumer who will benefit from a reduced or preferential tariff, be entered in the total" column of the heading "Detailed statement of fees paid on the account". Today, only the balance seems to be mentioned. Institutions should be given this possibility for consumers to be fully informed. This is already the case in the annual summaries of French fees, which consumers have received since 2009 and which they understand and appreciate. French consumer representatives do not want to relinquish this essential information for understanding and adapting their banking behavior.
This information is provided either in line, or in column (s. below).
For example in line :
For example in column :
2/ Optional nature of the non-applicable headings
As regards the overdraft or credit interest, of which the details for disclosure are set out in Articles 13 and 14 of the draft ITS, provision should be made (according to the logic of Articles 11 (4) and 12 (10) of the same draft), for the possibility of deleting the heading in question, where such charges are not applicable. Such a possibility - suggested by Article 5 (1) of the Directive (“as well as, where applicable, information regarding the interest rates”) - would make it possible to simplify considerably this statement by retaining only the lines or headings that actually concern the account or the payment service provider and to save space on the document. For example, virtually all PSPs in France do not serve credit interest on payment accounts. Introducing this empty heading would confuse the consumer.
Consumer associations also draw attention to the need to have a short document, ideally 2 pages maximum, concentrated on the tariffs actually applied to the customer (with, for some of them, reminders of the content of packages)
3/ Detailed content of the package of services
Article 11-1-a of the draft ITS provides for a detailed description of the content of the package of services subscribed by the consumer. The French payment service providers consider that this is unnecessary since the consumer knows his package of services and has its details in the particular conditions and the fees brochures sent to each payment account holder at each fee update, but it also lengthens the SoF which hinders its readability.
According to French PSPs It has no reason to take place in SoF. Moreover, adding it brings great technical complexity as this information is not available in fee IT schemes.
B/ As regards the standardised presentation rules
1/ The objective of Directive 2014/97 with regard to this statement of fees, which is standardised at European Union level, is in particular to ensure that the consumer is fully informed.
The CCSF is very attached to such annual recapitulative information, which it has promoted and which has existed in French law since 2009: in January of each year, consumers are sent a separate document recapitulating the total amount received by the payment service provider in the preceding calendar year in respect of goods or services which are provided to them as part of the management of their payment account. This summary includes, where applicable, interest paid on a debit position in the account. This summary must distinguish, for each category of products or services linked to the management of the payment or deposit account, the subtotal of the fees paid and the number of corresponding products or services.
However, the French legislator did not go so far as to standardise the presentation format, considering that a single format is useful neither for making comparisons nor for improving one’s understanding, and that it even hinders the access to information of certain populations (elderly, partially sighted, etc.).
While acknowledging the EBA’s clarification and standardisation efforts, the CCSF wishes to emphasise, as already mentioned in the reply to question 5, that the information provided must be geared to any medium (paper or electronic, where appropriate on a computer, tablet or telephone), and to the evolutions thereof. Thus, the provision of a document on an A4 format does not appear to be suited to the diversity of these media, nor is it necessary to guarantee full information to the consumer.
Incidentally, the CCSF wishes to recall the provisions of the directive 2014/17/EU, which advocate greater flexibility for the definition of the presentation format:
- Firstly, the statement of fees may not be provided on paper, since the article 5 states that “the statement of fees shall be provided on paper at least upon the request of the consumer”.
- As mentioned above, the recital 20 also precises that “when developing those formats, EBA should also take into account the fact that Member States may choose to provide the fee information document and the statement of fees together with information required pursuant to other Union or national legislative acts on payment accounts and related services”. This recital implies that the statement of fees should be designed and provided in a format, which is compatible with the format of any other document that may be provided in the same time.
2/ As regards the organisation of the proposed headings, The CCSF confirms that it is appropriate to start with the package of services, when it exists."
As regards the proposed logo template and the instructions provided on its insertion, the CCSF reiterates its questions to the EBA on the justification of the requirement set out in Article 3 (2). Such a provision has serious consequences in terms of the publication process, without representing any gain for the consumer. The identification and readability of the information will be guaranteed even if a document is issued in which a colour company logo and a common symbol for the FID and the SoF in black and white coexist.
2/ on the ability to distinguish between the FID and SOF symbols
The CCSF regrets that the two common symbols – that of the FID and that of the SoF - are so similar and difficult to distinguish from one another. It suggests, for example, that the colours be reversed, one of the symbols having the yellow background and the other symbol having the blue background.
3/ on the consistency of the logo/symbol sizes
The CCSF approves of the desire for visual consistency between the institutions’ individual logos and the common symbol. However, as with the SOF, it considers that standardising the size of the institutions’ logos by imposing the use of the same square format as the common symbol does not meet the aims of the directive. This square format is incompatible with the rectangular logos used by many French institutions. Inserting their logos into this square will dramatically reduce their size and make them illegible to a consumer, which is the opposite of the effect sought by the directive and unacceptable for the institutions: see example below.
The CCSF suggests allowing greater flexibility, by emphasising the idea of an overall balance, or equivalent surface area.
The CCSF sets out to both simplify and strengthen the advisory bodies of the financial sector. Its field of competence covers the whole financial sector: credit institutions, financing companies, electronic money institutions, payment institutions and insurance companies, including insurance brokers, general agents, intermediaries in banking transactions and payment services as well as investment firms, irrespective of the clients concerned, individuals or companies.
The Committee is composed of 32 regular members and 32 alternates appointed for a period of three years by order of the Minister of the Economy. The Committee is composed primarily, and in equal numbers (11 each) , of representatives of the credit institutions , the payment institutions, the investment firms, the insurance companies, the general insurance agents and the insurance brokers on the one hand, and of the clients representatives and representatives of the trade unions for employees in the financial sector on the other. 11 of the 15 national associations of consumers in France have a member appointed in the Committee.
The CCSF also contributes to fostering a dialogue between professionals and consumers on various financial issues on the national and European policy agenda. At the European level The Committee issues opinions and expresses itself on a large number of projects drawn up by the European authorities on the harmonization of business practices and of financial and retail investment services and products. The Committee has a working group on European subjects in charge of studying and explaining European legislation and of giving its opinion on the issues of transposals in French legal framework. This is in this framework that the committee answer to the consultation. The Committee has always adopted its opinions, with rare exceptions, by consensus, including this one.
Overall, the CCSF works towards bolstering the level of confidence between financial professionals and consumers whether insurance policy holders, savers or clients. In the contractualisation of bank-client relations, the CCSF contributes to improving transparency and competition and to developing modern means of payment. The CCSF took also part in the work of the National SEPA Committee for setting up the Single Euro Payments Area.
Presentation on CCSF website:
https://www.banque-france.fr/ccsf/fr/telechar/pdf/ccsf_note_information_136_mai_2015_gb.pdf
Question 1: Do you agree with the EBA’s decision to take a broad approach to defining ‘service’? Please explain your reasoning.
The CCSF considers that the broad approach adopted by the EBA goes towards improving consumer protection and information, contributing to a better fees transparency and comparability between the various payment service providers in the European Union. It thus approves this choice.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.
The CCSF considers that most of the services selected also correspond to the services linked to payment accounts most used by consumers in France, and thus achieve the objective of comparability and transparency set by the Directive. This is notably the case for the following services: Account maintenance - Debit card – Credit transfer – Direct debit and cash withdrawal.As regards the overdraft and the credit card, the CCSF notes that these services are not directly linked to the operation of a payment account, due in particular to the obligation to sign a prior credit contract.
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.
A/ As regards the methodology used by the EBA in the terms and definitions:Consumer representative members of the CCSF consider that defining a service through the action of the professional is somewhat unclear for the consumer and too professional-oriented. A client-oriented approach would be preferable or, failing that, a neutral, objective approach. The technical banking mechanism matters less to the client than the outcome of the operation.
The CCSF thus suggests defining the services on the European list and the national list according to the method of a glossary or a dictionary, or as in the directive 2014/92/EU in Article 2, for example for definitions 19 and 20 where the direct debit and the credit transfer are payment services", or for definition 21 where the standing order is an "instruction".
Example: Extract from the glossary of the CCSF:
credit transfer: «operation by which ...»;
direct debit: "means of payment by which ..."
In 2010, the CCSF drew up with professionals from the financial sector and consumer associations a very comprehensive glossary on "everyday banking and credit", comprising 210 definitions.
(cf.: http://www.banque-france.fr/ccsf/fr/infos_prat/telechar/glossaire/glossaire-ccsf-operations-bancaires-courantes.pdf).
This glossary is part of a series of 5 glossaries aimed at financial service consumers (insurance, savings and financial products, long-term care insurance, loan insurance), which was widely distributed in paper format by consumer associations and made available online on a very large number of banking and associative sites.
These 5 glossaries (a total of close to 600 definitions) adopt a homogeneous objective method, favoring clarity, brevity and a non-legal language accessible to all, without neglecting when necessary an educational complement. For the purpose of clarity for the consumer, the 6 definitions of the French national list should retain this method of definition.
B/ As regards the wording used for the recitals and provisions of the draft RTS:
The CCSF has no comments to make, subject to the above comments."
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.
As regards the terms and definitions:A/ General remarks applicable to the whole document:
- Designation of the professional: l’établissement qui fournit le compte" is not a correct expression in French, it is therefore not known to the consumer;
The CCSF suggests that it be substituted for either "l’établissement" or "l’établissement qui tient le compte". See infra in the new definitions;
- For the purpose of homogeneity, the terms should be presented in the same way, directly referring to the service under review and not to the act of making it available. We would therefore have: « tenue de compte- -carte de débit – carte de crédit – virement – prélèvement » etc.
B/ CCSF proposals of terms and definitions present on the draft French national list:
1. Maintaining the account: « L’établissement gère le compte du client ».
The notion of account used by the customer (« compte utilisé par le client ») should be deleted insofar as there are inactive accounts which are no longer used by the customer and for which account maintenance fees may nevertheless be charged.
2. Providing a debit card: « L’établissement fournit une carte de paiement liée au compte du client. Le montant de chaque opération effectuée à l’aide de cette carte est débité directement et intégralement sur le compte du client. »
(The account provider provides a payment card linked to the customer’s account. The amount of each transaction made using the card is debited (“débité”) directly and in full from the customer’s account)
The term “débité” is preferable to the term « prélevé » which refers to the « direct debit » defined further down.
3. Credit card: « L’établissement fournit une carte de paiement. Le montant total correspondant aux opérations effectuées à l’aide de cette carte au cours d’une période convenue est débité intégralement ou partiellement sur le compte du client ou une ligne de crédit ouverte au client à une date convenue. Lorsque le type de carte implique la conclusion d’un contrat de crédit entre l’établissement et le client, le contrat détermine si des intérêts seront facturés au client au titre du montant emprunté. »
The institution provides a payment card. The total amount corresponding to the transactions carried out using this card during an agreed period is fully or partially debited from the customer’s account or line of credit opened for the customer at an agreed date. When the type of card involves the conclusion of a credit contract between the institution and the customer, the contract determines whether interests will be invoiced to the customer in respect of the borrowed amount
4. Sending money: “L’établissement qui tient le compte transfère, sur instruction du client, une somme d’argent du compte du client vers un autre compte”.
5. Direct debit: « Opération par laquelle un tiers (appelé bénéficiaire) fait prélever sur le compte du client, à la date ou aux dates convenues avec lui, une somme d’argent dont le montant a préalablement été défini avec le client. Lorsqu’il s’agit d’un prélèvement récurrent, le montant concerné peut varier à chaque échéance. Préalablement, le client doit avoir autorisé (mandaté) le tiers (le bénéficiaire) à faire procéder à cette opération. »
(An operation where a third party (called the recipient) debits from the client's account, on the date or dates agreed upon with him, a sum of money previously defined with the customer.
In the case of a recurrent transfer, the amount concerned may vary at each installment.
The client must previously have authorised the third party (the recipient) to carry out this operation).
6. Cash withdrawal: (unchanged): “The customer takes cash out of the customer’s account.”
CCSF proposals of terms and definitions not present on the draft French national list:
C/ although these terms are not on the French national list, the CCSF wished to make its proposals for the clarity of all:
7. “Découvert autorisé” (arranged overdraft): « L’établissement et le client conviennent à l’avance que le compte peut être débiteur pendant une durée maximale. Le contrat définit le montant maximum susceptible d’être emprunté et précise si des frais et des intérêts seront facturés au client. »
(The account provider and the customer agree in advance that the account may show a negative balance for a maximum period. The agreement determines a maximum amount that can be borrowed, and whether fees and interest will be charged to the customer.)
8. “Virement permanent” (Standing order): “L’établissement qui tient le compte effectue, sur instruction du client, des virements réguliers, d’un montant fixe, du compte du client vers un autre compte”.
The “ordre permanent" is not an expression used in France to refer to recurrent transfers. It covers, as the directive suggests in its definition 21 of Article 2, the instruction given by the customer, i.e., in the everyday French language, the setting up of the standing order. There is a confusion in the definition proposed by the EBA that would mislead the customer. Indeed, the performance by the account provider of regular transfers is referred to as “virement permanent”. These two different operations are also charged separately."
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.
The Directive provides that the fee information document that payment service providers are required to make available to consumers must be short stand-alone document, presented and laid out in a clear and easy to read manner.The Directive also provides that where one or more services are offered as part of a package of services linked to a payment account, the document provides detailed fee information on that package.
It also states in its recitals that the fee information document refers to “all services contained in the list of the most representative services linked to a payment account at national level”. It adds that this “fee information document should where applicable use the standardised terms and definitions established at Union level. This would also contribute to establishing a level playing field between payment service providers competing in the payment account market. The fee information document should not contain any other fees”. (Recital 19). Furthermore, it offers some flexibility to Member States by indicating that, for both the FID and the SoF: “when developing those formats, EBA should also take into account the fact that Member States may choose to provide the fee information document and the statement of fees together with information required pursuant to other Union or national legislative acts on payment accounts and related services” (Recital 20).
In view of the above, the CCSF would like to draw the attention of the EBA to the following points:
A/ -As regards the content of the document
1 / In order to ensure the short nature of this information document, identical for all customers and to meet the readability requirement imposed by the Directive, each payment service provider should only include the most marketed packaged product in the information document and list the other packaged products –customised - in the fees brochure.
Bankers and consumers alike agree that a succinct document is useful for making real comparisons and ensuring a simple understanding. They also agree that a document of more than 2 pages does not make it possible to fulfill these two objectives of a short and clear document.
The French market for packaged services has been monitored since 2011 each year in a specific chapter of the annual report of the Observatory of Banking Fees of the CCSF (see on Annex). The following points emerge:
Payment service providers offer on average 5.5 packaged products (with a maximum of 14 for the same institution), 3.5 of which correspond to competing commercial offers and 2 of which have a uniform content and a target clientele defined by law.
In addition, 81% of banks offer one or more packages of services that are customisable or semi-customisable. Note that the degree of customisation varies greatly from one bank to another, with the base containing an average of 7.50 services, with potentially up to 18 options.
In this context, the fee information document would be substantially lengthened if it were to include each one of the customised packaged products as described above. [By way of illustration, the CCSF appends an example – see annex - of what this document might constitute; it would cover several pages, without necessarily guaranteeing the completeness of the information.] Moreover, such an interpretation of the directive is likely to encourage payment service provider providers to stop offering customised services, which nevertheless meets some customers’ requirements and one of the concerns expressed by consumers and mentioned in the recitals of Directive 2014/92. It points out that « payment service providers may offer payment accounts packaged with products not requested by consumers which are not essential for payment accounts” (recital 24). Customising packaged products is a way of avoiding such a pitfall.
The CCSF therefore proposes that the ITS give payment service providers the possibility, when several distinct customised packaged products are linked to a payment account, of including only the central, most marketed product, which includes core services. The addition of the reference to the fees brochure which presents all the packaged products with the possible customisations, should be included in the FID in order to fully inform the consumer, while enabling him to compare payment service providers’ practices in terms of packaged products.
2/ As regards the particulars that must appear in the document, the date of fees application should be inserted (for example: “As for July 1st 2017”). Fees are regularly adjusted. It is therefore necessary to ensure that this FID is updated.
B/ -As regards the standardised presentation rules
The objective of Directive 2014/97 as regards this fee information document, the presentation of which is standardised at European Union level, is to guarantee both full consumer information and easy and effective comparability between the services offered by the various EU payment service providers.
Such transparency and comparability requirements already apply to payment service providers in France. This is done notably by means of a fees’ brochure which providers are required to make available to consumers, online and in branches. The standardisation of the presentation of this document has led to the definition of a standard table of contents, an organisation of the different headings, information rules applicable to each type of fee (unit, package, etc.) and has imposed inserting a standard extract of fees at the beginning of the document, which presents the fees of the 11 services on the national list. The standard has not, however, defined the character size, the font used or the format of the document.
In this respect, it appears necessary that the information provided be geared to any medium (paper or electronic, where appropriate on a computer, tablet or telephone), and to the evolutions thereof. Thus, the provision of a document on an A4 format does not appear to be suited to the diversity of these media, nor is it required to guarantee the full information of the consumer. In this regard, mention may be made of the customised pre contractual information sheet, the template of which has been defined and harmonised at European Union level, in consumer credit and real estate credit, respectively by Directives 2008/48 and 2014/17. The drawing up of these two templates has not been accompanied by any prescription regarding the format of the document.
Incidentally, the CCSF wishes to recall the provisions of the directive 2014/17/EU, in particular the recital 20: “when developing those formats, EBA should also take into account the fact that Member States may choose to provide the fee information document and the statement of fees together with information required pursuant to other Union or national legislative acts on payment accounts and related services”. This recital suggests that the FID whose standardizes template is laid down by EBA, should be produced and provided in a format compatible with other information which must be provided together. In France, this is for example the fees’ brochure which payment service providers are required to make available for consumers, online and in branches, as mentioned above.
The CCSF therefore proposes that the ITS provide a sufficiently flexible format, including in terms of font, column size, spacing, etc., in order to remain readable despite the richness of certain contents and irrespective of the medium, in particular electronic, as French clients mostly use their mobile, tablet or computer to carry out their banking operations.
Annex
Document d'information tarifaire
Name of the account provider:
Account name:
* This document informs you about the fees for using the main services linked to the payment account. It will help you to compare these fees with those of other accounts.
* Fees may also apply for using services linked to the account which are not listed here. Full information is available in [to be inserted by provider - names of the relevant pre-contractual and contractual documents].
* A glossary of the terms used in this document is available free of charge
Offres groupée de services Tarif
JAZZ
Contenu de l'offre :
- 1 carte de paiement V PAY mensuel : 7,70€
- choix du code secret de la carte coût total annuel : 92,40 €
- remplacement de la carte suite
au blocage pour perte, vol ou
utilisation frauduleuse
- cotisation à une offre
d'assurance perte ou vol des
moyens de paiement (Quietis)
- relevé de compte classé par
type d'opérations
- 1 chèque de banque par an
- oppositions sur chèques pour
perte ou vol
- révocations de mandat de
prélèvement SEPA
- 1 facilité de caisse (à partir de
18 ans)
- 1 forfait d'exonération d'intérêts
débiteurs (pour les 18-24 ans)
- exonération des frais de tenue
de compte actif
- 1 carte de paiement Visa mensuel : 8,35€
ou Mastercard coût total annuel : 100,20 €
- choix du code secret de la carte
- remplacement de la carte suite
au blocage pour perte, vol ou
utilisation frauduleuse
- 1 forfait mensuel de retrait
d'espèces aux distributeurs de
billets hors SG et CDN
- cotisation à une offre
d'assurance perte ou vol des
moyens de paiement (Quietis)
- relevé de compte classé par
type d'opérations
- 1 chèque de banque par an
- oppositions sur chèques pour
perte ou vol
- révocations de mandat de
prélèvement SEPA
- 1 facilité de caisse (à partir de
18 ans)
- 1 forfait d'exonération d'intérêts
débiteurs (pour les 18-24 ans)
- 1 carte de paiement Visa 1er mensuel : 15,95€
ou Gold Mastercard
coût total annuel : 191,40 €
- choix du code secret de la carte
- remplacement de la carte suite
au blocage pour perte, vol ou
utilisation frauduleuse
- cotisation à une offre
d'assurance perte ou vol des
moyens de paiement (Quietis)
- relevé de compte classé par
type d'opérations
- 1 chèque de banque par an
- oppositions sur chèques pour
perte ou vol
- révocations de mandat de
prélèvement SEPA
- 1 facilité de caisse (à partir de
18 ans)
- 1 forfait d'exonération d'intérêts
débiteurs (pour les 18-24 ans)
- 1 carte de paiement Visa Infinite mensuel : 30,85€
- choix du code secret de la carte coût total annuel : 370,20 €
- remplacement de la carte suite
au blocage pour perte, vol ou
utilisation frauduleuse
- cotisation à une offre
d'assurance perte ou vol des
moyens de paiement (Quietis)
- relevé de compte classé par
type d'opérations
- 1 chèque de banque par an
- oppositions sur chèques pour
perte ou vol
- révocations de mandat de
prélèvement SEPA
- 1 facilité de caisse (à partir de
18 ans)
- 1 forfait d'exonération d'intérêts
débiteurs (pour les 18-24 ans)
Options JAZZ
Option Tranquilité
Contenu de l'offre :
- Service Opposition toutes cartes mensuel : 0,65€
- Service Mémoire et assurance coût total annuel : 7,80 €
Garantie Prix
Option Souplesse
Contenu de l'offre :
- Forfait d'exonération d'intérêts mensuel : 3,20€
débiteurs coût total annuel : 38,40 €
- frais de lettre d'information pour
compte débiteurs non autorisé
- 1 assurance décès accidentel
Option Alerte SMS
Contenu de l'offre :
- abonnement à un produit mensuel : 2,15€
offrant des alertes de la situation coût total annuel : 25,80 €
du compte par SMS
Option internationale
Contenu de l'offre :
- Exonération des commissions mensuel : 10,00€
SG sur 6 paiements par carte et coût total annuel : 120,00 €
2 retraits hors zone € par mois
(niveau Initial)
- Exonération des commissions mensuel : 17,50€
SG sur tous les paiements par coût total annuel : 210,00 €
carte et tous les retraits hors
zone € (niveau Intense)
- Exonération des commissions mensuel : 25,00€
SG sur tous les paiements et tous coût total annuel : 300,00 €
les retraits par carte et tous les
virements non SEPA
(internationaux) émis ou reçus
(niveau Illimité)
- Exonération des commissions mensuel : 5,00€
SG sur tous les paiements par coût total annuel : 60,00 €
carte et tous les retraits hors
zone € (niveau Etudiants
GENERIS : offre destinée aux mensuel : 3,00€
clients en situation de fragilité coût total annuel : 36,00 €
financière
Contenu de l'offre :
- ouverture, tenue, fermeture
du compte
- 1 carte V PAY
- dépôts retraits d'espèces dans
l'agence qui tient le compte
- 1 virement permanent SEPA
initié en agence par mois
- virements occasionnels et
permanents illimités via internet
- paiement par TIP SEPA et
prélèvements SEPA illimités
- 3 chèques de banques par mois
- accès illimité à l'espace sécurisé
internet
- 1 alerte par SMS dès que le
solde du compte passe sous le
seuil de 100 €
Service Bancaire de Base GRATUIT
Ensemble de services bancaires
fournis dans le cadre du droit au
compte prévu par l'article L312-1
du code monétaire et financier
Service Tarif
Services liés au compte
Tenue de compte mensuel : 2,00 €
coût total annuel : 24,00 €
Abonnement à des services de GRATUIT
banque à distance (internet)
Abonnement à un produit offrant mensuel : 3,65€
des alertes de la situation du coût total annuel : 43,80 €
compte par SMS (Messalia)
Paiements (hors cartes de paiement)
Virement en agence : 3,80 €
par internet : GRATUIT
(cas d'un virement SEPA occasionnel)
Prélèvement SEPA
- Frais de mise en place d'un GRATUIT
mandat de prélèvement
- Frais par paiement d'un GRATUIT
prélèvement
Cartes de paiement et retraits d'espèces
Fourniture de la carte de paiement coût total annuel : 44,50 €
internationale à debit immédiat (Carte Visa ou MasterCard)
Fourniture de la carte de paiement coût total annuel : 44,50 €
internationale à debit différé (Carte Visa ou MasterCard)
Fourniture de la carte de paiement coût total annuel : 35,00 €
à autorisation systématique (Carte V PAY)
Retrait d'espèces par retrait : 1,00 €
A un DAB d'une autre banque, à partir du 4ème
retrait par mois
(cas d'un retrait en euro dans la zone euro avec une
carte de paiement internationale) - carte Visa ou
MasterCard
Autres services
Commission d'intervention par opération : 8,00 €
avec un plafond de 80 € par mois
Cotisation à une offre d'assurance coût total annuel : 30,00 €
perte ou vol des moyens de
paiement (Quiétis)
Information complémentaire
Service Tarif
Cotisation annuelle carte 135,00 €
Visa Premier ou Gold Mastercard
(à débit immédiat ou différé)
Cotisation annuelle carte 330,00 €
Visa Infinite
(à débit immédiat ou différé)
Choix du code secret de la carte 10,00 €
Remplacement de la carte suite 16,00 €
au blocage pour perte, vol ou
utilisation frauduleuse
Forfait mensuel de retrait gratuit 3
dans un DAB hors agences Société Générale
ou Crédit du Nord
Carte Visa ou Mastercard hors JAZZ
Relevé de compte classé par type coût total annuel : 16,00 €
d'opérations
Frais d'émission d'un chèque de
14,00 €
banque
Frais d'opposition sur chèques 12,50 €
pour perte ou vol
Frais de révocation d'un mandat 12,50 €
de prélèvement
Service opposition toutes cartes coût total annuel : 18,00 €
Service Garantie prix coût total annuel : 22,00 €
Forfait d'exonération d'intérêts coût total annuel : 38,00 €
débiteurs + assurance décès
accidentel + frais de mise en
opposition sur chèques perdus ou
volés (PIANO)
Minimum forfaitaire d'intérêts coût total annuel : 23,20 €
débiteurs
Frais de lettre d'information pour 15,00 €
compte débiteur non autorisé
Frais par retrait à un distibuteur frais fixe 3,00 €
automatique de billet hors zone € frais variable (carte Infinite) 2,00 %
frais variable (autres cartes) 2,00 %
Frais par paiement par carte frais fixe (paiement > 10€) 1,00 €
hors zone € frais variable (carte Infinite) 2,00 %
frais variable (autres cartes) 2,00 %
Frais par virement non SEPA Internet
(international) émis virement <= 500 € 9,00 €
virement > 500 € 13,00 €
Agence
virement <= 500 € 13,00 €
virement > 500 € 26,00 €
Frais par virement non SEPA virement <= 150 € GRATUIT
(international) reçu
virement > 150 € 22,00 €
Annex
Extract from the 2016 Rapport de l’observatoire des tarifs bancaires
Chapter 4 Packaged services offers
Since 2011, analysis of packaged service offers (formerly known in French as bouquets de services" or "packages") in fee information documents has excluded both means of payment other than cheques and basic banking services related to the right to hold a basic bank account.
The analysis uses current prices; price changes should therefore be considered in relation to consumer price changes over the same period.
Since 2015, the Observatory has chosen to refocus its analysis on the offers of the 22 largest institutions in its sample, which represent a market share of 54%, as the extremely time-consuming study of 123 institutions carried out for the previous reports did not produce more relevant qualitative results. Given the weight of the main institutions offering this type of product, Sémaphore Conseil therefore focused its research on said main banks.
1| Offer trend
The analysis found that all of the banks on which it focused marketed at least one packaged service offer.
1|1 The number of packaged offers actually marketed is continuing to fall
Based on analysis of the fee information documents published by the sample banks between 31 December 2010 and 5 January 2016, there was a fall of nearly 30% in the number of offers marketed during that period. This downward trend, which began in 2011, flattened out in 2016 as the number of offers actually marketed has been stable since January 2015, at 77.
At the same time, the number of offers that are no longer marketed has started to rise again, from 53 in January 2014 and 69 in January 2015 to 73 in January 2016. Parity between marketed offers and non-marketed offers has therefore almost been reached.
In terms of breakdown, the number of packages actually marketed between January 2015 and January 2016 was unchanged at 86.36% of banks, down at 4.55% and up at 9.09%.
The slowing decline in the average number of offers actually marketed is attributable to the slowdown in the roll-out of new-generation offers, with the majority of banks having already renewed their offers in the previous period.
1|2 Offer renewal
Following the publication in July 2010 of the Pauget Constans report on banking service pricing, on 21 September 2010 the banking profession committed to improving information on packages by giving more content-related details in the fee information documents and when new account agreements are signed. The banks also announced that they would offer new generations of packages that were subject to open competition and better suited to their customers' individual needs.
The findings at 5 January 2016 confirmed that this commitment is borne out in reality, as had already been noted in previous years. Indeed, the average number of offers actually marketed by the banks remained stable at 3.5 at 5 January 2016 (and 5 January 2015), whereas it had been 4 in January 2014 and 4.14 in January 2013. This trend points to significant offer renewal, particularly through the increased marketing of new generations of personalised offers.
The maximum number of packages for a single bank, which was 11 from 5 July 2011 to 5 July 2014, increased to 12 in January 2015 and has not changed since.
1|3 The personalisation trend is continuing
As from 2012, a major banking institution revamped its package offering by significantly reducing its number of packages and marketing offers built around a core of essential services (account management, everyday transactions, cards, etc.) and à la carte options (overdraft, means of payment insurance, etc.) This major bank's action weighed significantly on all observed results, as, since then, many other banks have also based their offering on a smaller number of core services accompanied by customer-chosen options.
In January 2016, 81% of the sample banks (compared with 77% in 2014) were marketing one or more personalised or semi personalised packaged service offers, while 19% were marketing none. These two figures were unchanged from 2015.
However, it is notable that the degree of personalisation varies greatly between the banks: the core can contain up to 19 services (average 7.56), with the potential to add 18 options (average 5.76) on top. These figures have been the same since 2013.
Personalised packages mainly operate based on options or option groups.
The inclusion or not of a card in a packaged service offer, and the card type, are the most significant factors impacting pricing. In ten banks in 2015 and 2016, compared with nine in 2014, the pricing of options was governed by a price reduction system based on either the number of options selected or the revenue generated by the options chosen. However, no offer is completely personalised. Note that, of the packaged service offers launched between January 2015 and January 2016, three are semi personalised, compared with four in 2014 and 2015, which reflects the slowdown in the number of new launches.
1|4 Generally stable offer content
As seen above, the overall number of offers actually marketed remained unchanged from one year to the next for the first time since 2010.
Moreover, if we study the changes in more detail and exclude new offer launches, marketed offers have not seen any significant qualitative change since January 2015.
As in 2014, all the offers launched since January 2015 are personalised to varying degrees.
1|5 Offers for young customers
There was a further increase in the number of offers marketed to young customers (up 1.69% between January 2015 and January 2016, with 60 offers in 2015 compared with 59 in 2014) but the upward trend for this type of product continues to slow, with only one new offer recorded between 2015 and 2016.
These specific offers for young customers exist in 68% of the sample banks. As with the general offers, the degree of personalisation varies greatly, with up to 15 core services (average 4.8) and up to 16 options (average 2.83), which is one less than in January 2015.
2| The main price changes
For the various categories of packaged offers proposed by the 22 sample banks, including free offers, after two consecutive years of price decreases, average, minimum and maximum prices have now begun to trend up.
There was also an increase in the average annual minimum price of packages including a card but no options (+6.3%), the average annual maximum price of packages including a card but no options (excluding premium cards) (+5.44%) and the average annual maximum price of packages with neither card nor options (including premium cards) (+2.36%).
It should be stressed that the pricing methods and levels of service packages can vary greatly from one bank to the next, owing to a number of factors such as the inclusion or not of a card within the offer, the position in the range of the card included, the inclusion of a greater or lesser number of options and even the existence of reductions in proportion to the number of options chosen.
As an absolute value and excluding premium offers, the average annual price at 5 January 2016 ranged between EUR 76.82 and EUR 94.72 per year, compared with EUR 73.81 and EUR 93.73 per year, respectively, in December 2010.
2|1 Change in annual costs depending on the type of package
2|1|1 Quantitative change between 31 December 2010 and 5 January 2016
For the various categories of packaged offers that the sample banks market, there were three distinct price trends in the period between December 2010 and January 2016:
• The average annual price of packages with neither card nor options increased in 82.35% of cases;
• The average annual minimum and maximum prices of packages including a card but no options (excluding premium offers) also increased, in more than 70% of cases.
2|1|2 Quantitative change between 5 January 2015 and 5 January 2016
Over this shorter period, the results showed an increase in the annual price of packages with neither card nor options in 66.67% of cases, and an increase in the minimum and maximum prices in 50% of cases.
In addition, there was a very sharp decrease between 2010 and 2016 in the median prices of packages with neither card nor options.
The minimum and maximum prices of packages including a card but no options did not change between 2015 and 2016.
2|2 Offers for young customers
During the period under review, the minimum and maximum annual prices of packaged offers targeting young people showed contrasting trends.
In the period between 5 January 2015 and 5 January 2016, the average annual fee for packaged service offers with neither card nor options increased slightly by 0.48%, following sharp falls in 2015 (-11.43%) and 2014 (-28.23%).
By contrast, the minimum fees for offers including a card but no options decreased slightly by 1.38%, having risen significantly in the previous years.
2 – Tables and graphs section
Table 8 Change in the number of packaged offers
(% change)
31 December 2010 5 January
2015 5 January
2016 Trend between 31 Dec. 2010
and 5 January 2016 Change between 5 January 2015
and 5 January 2016 Trend
between 5 January 2015
and 5 January 2016
Marketed packaged service offers 109 77 77 ↓ 0.00
Packaged service offers listed in the fee information document but no longer marketed 37 69 73 ↑ 5.80 ↑
Total number of packaged service offers 146 146 151 3.42 ↑
Source: Sémaphore Conseil.
Table 9 Change in the number of offers per bank
(% change)
31 December 2010 5 January
2015 5 January
2016 Change between 31 Dec. 2010
and 5 January 2016 Trend
between 31 Dec. 2010
and 5 January 2016 Change between 5 January 2015
and 5 January 2016 Trend
between 5 January 2015
and 5 January 2016
Average number of offers per bank 4.95 3.50 3.50 - 29.36 ↓ 0.00
Maximum number of offers marketed by a bank 11.00 12.00 12.00 9.09 ↑ 0.00
Source: Sémaphore Conseil.
Table 10 Change in the number of options
(% change)
31 December 2010 5 January
2015 5 January
2016 Change
between 31 Dec. 2010
and 5 Jan. 2016 Trend
between 31 Dec. 2010
and 5 Jan. 2016 Change between
5 Jan. 2015 and
5 Jan. 2016 Trend between
5 Jan. 2015 and
5 Jan. 2016
Minimum number 1 1 1 0.00 0.00
Maximum number 14 23 23 64.29 ↑ 0.00
Average 3.19 3.63 3.63 13.83 ↑ - 0.04 ↓
Source: Sémaphore Conseil.
Table 11 Change in the number of offers for young customers
(% change)
31 Dec.
2010 5 Jan.
2015 5 Jan.
2016 Change between 31 Dec. 2010
and 5 January
2016 Trend
between 31 Dec. 2010
and 5 January
2016 Change between 5 January 2015
and 5 January
2016 Trend
between 5 January 2015
and 5 January 2016
Number of offers for young customers available in the fee information documents 48 59 60 25 ↑ 1.69 ↑
Source: Sémaphore Conseil.
Table 12
Average annual price of offers per offer type
(in EUR, % change)
31 December 2010 5 January
2015 5 January
2016 Change
between 31 Dec. 2010
and 5 January
2016 Trend between 31 December 2010
and 5 January
2016 Change
between 5 January 2015
and 5 January
2016 Trend
between 5 January 2015
and 5 January
2016
Annual price
of the offer with neither card nor options 86.80 66.37 68.17 - 21.46 ↓ 2.71 ↑
Minimum annual price
of the offer including card but no options, excluding premium offers 73.81 72.27 76.82 4.07 ↑ 6.30 ↑
Maximum annual price
of the offer including card but no options, excluding premium offers 93.73 89.83 94.72 1.06 ↑ 5.44 ↑
Maximum annual price
of the offer including card but no options,
including premium offers 334.48 336.99 344.93 3.13 ↑ 2.36 ↑
Source: Sémaphore Conseil.
Table 13
Average annual price of offers per offer type excluding free
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.
A/ - on the consistency of the logo/symbol coloursAs regards the proposed logo template and the instructions provided on its insertion, the CCSF reiterates its questions to the EBA on the justification of the requirement set out in Article 3 (2). Such a provision has serious consequences in terms of the publication process, without representing any gain for the consumer. The identification and readability of the information will be guaranteed even if a document is issued in which a colour company logo and a common symbol for the FID and the SoF in black and white coexist.
B/ on the ability to distinguish between the FID and SOF symbols
The CCSF regrets that the two common symbols – that of the FID and that of the SoF - are so similar and difficult to distinguish from one another. It suggests, for example, that the colours be reversed, one of the symbols having the yellow background and the other symbol having the blue background.
C/ on the consistency of the logo/symbol sizes
The CCSF approves of the desire for visual consistency between the institutions’ individual logos and the common symbol. However, as with the SOF, it considers that standardising the size of the institutions’ logos by imposing the use of the same square format as the common symbol does not meet the aims of the directive. This square format is incompatible with the rectangular logos used by many French institutions. Inserting their logos into this square will dramatically reduce their size and make them illegible to consumers, which is the opposite of the effect sought by the directive and unacceptable for the institutions: see example below.
The CCSF suggests allowing greater flexibility, by emphasising the idea of an overall balance, or equivalent surface area.
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.
The CCSF has no comments to make on this point subject to the above comments.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.
The CCSF has no comments to make on this point subject to the above comments.Template FID EBA
Fee Information Document
As for DATE
Name of the account provider:
Account name:
• This document informs you about the fees of using the main services linked to the account. It will help you to compare these fees with those of other accounts.
• Fees may also apply for using services linked to the account which are not listed here. Full information is available in [specify names of the relevant pre-contractual and contractual documents].
• The package of services proposed in this document is [……] (brand name). This package of services is a customizable product. Full information about the services which can be linked to this service is available in [specify names of the relevant pre-contractual and contractual documents]
• A glossary of the terms used in this document is available free of charge.
Service Fee
General account services
[●]
Includes a package of services consisting of:
Services beyond these quantities will be charged separately. The fees are listed below. [●]
Payments (excluding cards)
[●]
Cards and cash
[●]
Overdrafts and related services
[●]
Other services
[●]
Package of services Fee
Package consists of:
Services beyond these quantities will be charged separately. The fees are listed below.
This package of services is a customizable product. Please refer to [name of the relevant pre-contractual and contractual document [●]
Key cost indicator
[●]
Additional information
[●]
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.
The Directive provides for the supply to the consumer, at least once a year, of a statement of all fees incurred and, where applicable, of the overdraft and credit interest. The statement of fees is presented and laid out in a clear and easy to read format, using characters of a readable size. It has a common symbol to distinguish this document from other documentation. The statement of fees provided on paper, at least when requested by the consumer, contains at least the information specified in the Directive. This includes the unit price charged for each service and the number of times the service was used during the period considered and, where applicable, the overdraft interest rate applied to the payment account and the total amount of interest billed in relation to the overdraft during the period considered and the credit interest rate applied to the payment account.The directive specifies in its recitals that this statement enables a consumer to understand what fee expenditures relate to and to assess the need to either modify consumption patterns or move to another provider. It states that the same format, order of items and headings should be followed for every statement of fees in each Member State, allowing consumers to make comparisons. Furthermore, it offers some flexibility to Member States by indicating that, for both the FID and the SoF : “when developing those formats, EBA should also take into account the fact that Member States may choose to provide the fee information document and the statement of fees together with information required pursuant to other Union or national legislative acts on payment accounts and related services” (Recital 20).
In view of the above, the CCSF wishes to draw attention to the following points.
A/-as regards the content of the document
In order to comply with the readability requirement and the informative nature of this statement of fees, some changes should be made to the draft ITS submitted for public consultation.
1/ The difference between” services used” and “services charged “
The draft ITS (Arts 11 and 12) requires, for the summary of fees included in the packaged product subscribed by the consumer, as well as for that of each of the services linked to a payment account, that be specified the number of times that these different fees have been charged. This may prove to be completely inoperative in certain cases: for example in the case of flat-rate fees or capped fees. Incidentally, it does not comply with the Directive. Indeed, in accordance with Article 5 (1), the consumer must be informed of the number of times that the service was used during the period considered and not the number of times that the fees were invoiced. It is this specification, more relevant to the consumer, and in accordance with the text of the Directive, which must therefore be adopted.
For the consumer to be properly informed, it is important that the detail of the composition of the charged price, and in particular the discounts or retrocessions to the credit of the consumer who will benefit from a reduced or preferential tariff, be entered in the total" column of the heading "Detailed statement of fees paid on the account". Today, only the balance seems to be mentioned. Institutions should be given this possibility for consumers to be fully informed. This is already the case in the annual summaries of French fees, which consumers have received since 2009 and which they understand and appreciate. French consumer representatives do not want to relinquish this essential information for understanding and adapting their banking behavior.
This information is provided either in line, or in column (s. below).
For example in line :
For example in column :
2/ Optional nature of the non-applicable headings
As regards the overdraft or credit interest, of which the details for disclosure are set out in Articles 13 and 14 of the draft ITS, provision should be made (according to the logic of Articles 11 (4) and 12 (10) of the same draft), for the possibility of deleting the heading in question, where such charges are not applicable. Such a possibility - suggested by Article 5 (1) of the Directive (“as well as, where applicable, information regarding the interest rates”) - would make it possible to simplify considerably this statement by retaining only the lines or headings that actually concern the account or the payment service provider and to save space on the document. For example, virtually all PSPs in France do not serve credit interest on payment accounts. Introducing this empty heading would confuse the consumer.
Consumer associations also draw attention to the need to have a short document, ideally 2 pages maximum, concentrated on the tariffs actually applied to the customer (with, for some of them, reminders of the content of packages)
3/ Detailed content of the package of services
Article 11-1-a of the draft ITS provides for a detailed description of the content of the package of services subscribed by the consumer. The French payment service providers consider that this is unnecessary since the consumer knows his package of services and has its details in the particular conditions and the fees brochures sent to each payment account holder at each fee update, but it also lengthens the SoF which hinders its readability.
According to French PSPs It has no reason to take place in SoF. Moreover, adding it brings great technical complexity as this information is not available in fee IT schemes.
B/ As regards the standardised presentation rules
1/ The objective of Directive 2014/97 with regard to this statement of fees, which is standardised at European Union level, is in particular to ensure that the consumer is fully informed.
The CCSF is very attached to such annual recapitulative information, which it has promoted and which has existed in French law since 2009: in January of each year, consumers are sent a separate document recapitulating the total amount received by the payment service provider in the preceding calendar year in respect of goods or services which are provided to them as part of the management of their payment account. This summary includes, where applicable, interest paid on a debit position in the account. This summary must distinguish, for each category of products or services linked to the management of the payment or deposit account, the subtotal of the fees paid and the number of corresponding products or services.
However, the French legislator did not go so far as to standardise the presentation format, considering that a single format is useful neither for making comparisons nor for improving one’s understanding, and that it even hinders the access to information of certain populations (elderly, partially sighted, etc.).
While acknowledging the EBA’s clarification and standardisation efforts, the CCSF wishes to emphasise, as already mentioned in the reply to question 5, that the information provided must be geared to any medium (paper or electronic, where appropriate on a computer, tablet or telephone), and to the evolutions thereof. Thus, the provision of a document on an A4 format does not appear to be suited to the diversity of these media, nor is it necessary to guarantee full information to the consumer.
Incidentally, the CCSF wishes to recall the provisions of the directive 2014/17/EU, which advocate greater flexibility for the definition of the presentation format:
- Firstly, the statement of fees may not be provided on paper, since the article 5 states that “the statement of fees shall be provided on paper at least upon the request of the consumer”.
- As mentioned above, the recital 20 also precises that “when developing those formats, EBA should also take into account the fact that Member States may choose to provide the fee information document and the statement of fees together with information required pursuant to other Union or national legislative acts on payment accounts and related services”. This recital implies that the statement of fees should be designed and provided in a format, which is compatible with the format of any other document that may be provided in the same time.
2/ As regards the organisation of the proposed headings, The CCSF confirms that it is appropriate to start with the package of services, when it exists."
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.
1/ on the consistency of the logo/symbol coloursAs regards the proposed logo template and the instructions provided on its insertion, the CCSF reiterates its questions to the EBA on the justification of the requirement set out in Article 3 (2). Such a provision has serious consequences in terms of the publication process, without representing any gain for the consumer. The identification and readability of the information will be guaranteed even if a document is issued in which a colour company logo and a common symbol for the FID and the SoF in black and white coexist.
2/ on the ability to distinguish between the FID and SOF symbols
The CCSF regrets that the two common symbols – that of the FID and that of the SoF - are so similar and difficult to distinguish from one another. It suggests, for example, that the colours be reversed, one of the symbols having the yellow background and the other symbol having the blue background.
3/ on the consistency of the logo/symbol sizes
The CCSF approves of the desire for visual consistency between the institutions’ individual logos and the common symbol. However, as with the SOF, it considers that standardising the size of the institutions’ logos by imposing the use of the same square format as the common symbol does not meet the aims of the directive. This square format is incompatible with the rectangular logos used by many French institutions. Inserting their logos into this square will dramatically reduce their size and make them illegible to a consumer, which is the opposite of the effect sought by the directive and unacceptable for the institutions: see example below.
The CCSF suggests allowing greater flexibility, by emphasising the idea of an overall balance, or equivalent surface area.
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.
With regard to article 14 on credit interest, it was suggested to delete point 5, which appears to be redundant with point 7 of the same article.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.
The CCSF has no comments to make on this point subject to the above comments.Please select which category best describes you and/or your organisation
[Credit institution"]"If you selected "Other", please provide details
The consultative Committee for the Financial Sector (Comité consultatif du secteur financier - CCSF) was created by the law No. 2003-706 of 1 August 2003, known as the Financial Security Act (LSF), codified in Article L614-1 of the Monetary and Financial Code. It is charged with studying questions pertaining to the relations between financial institutions and their respective clients, and with proposing appropriate measures in this area either in the form of opinions or general recommendations.The CCSF sets out to both simplify and strengthen the advisory bodies of the financial sector. Its field of competence covers the whole financial sector: credit institutions, financing companies, electronic money institutions, payment institutions and insurance companies, including insurance brokers, general agents, intermediaries in banking transactions and payment services as well as investment firms, irrespective of the clients concerned, individuals or companies.
The Committee is composed of 32 regular members and 32 alternates appointed for a period of three years by order of the Minister of the Economy. The Committee is composed primarily, and in equal numbers (11 each) , of representatives of the credit institutions , the payment institutions, the investment firms, the insurance companies, the general insurance agents and the insurance brokers on the one hand, and of the clients representatives and representatives of the trade unions for employees in the financial sector on the other. 11 of the 15 national associations of consumers in France have a member appointed in the Committee.
The CCSF also contributes to fostering a dialogue between professionals and consumers on various financial issues on the national and European policy agenda. At the European level The Committee issues opinions and expresses itself on a large number of projects drawn up by the European authorities on the harmonization of business practices and of financial and retail investment services and products. The Committee has a working group on European subjects in charge of studying and explaining European legislation and of giving its opinion on the issues of transposals in French legal framework. This is in this framework that the committee answer to the consultation. The Committee has always adopted its opinions, with rare exceptions, by consensus, including this one.
Overall, the CCSF works towards bolstering the level of confidence between financial professionals and consumers whether insurance policy holders, savers or clients. In the contractualisation of bank-client relations, the CCSF contributes to improving transparency and competition and to developing modern means of payment. The CCSF took also part in the work of the National SEPA Committee for setting up the Single Euro Payments Area.
Presentation on CCSF website:
https://www.banque-france.fr/ccsf/fr/telechar/pdf/ccsf_note_information_136_mai_2015_gb.pdf