Response to consultation on Technical Standards on standardised terminology and disclosure documents under the PAD
Go back
Different approach to integration of standardized terms (e. g. simply replacing terms from national lists by broader standardized terms) could make FIDs and SOFs documents useless – especially when providing information about banks with complicated pricing strategies – see example here (OneDrive link: https://1drv.ms/f/s!AiC6JncIH4RogZ5i-VQ_XmKEUCc4mA).
Secondly, Article 1(2)b of the draft ITS on FID allows payment service providers (PSPs) to use their own logo limited by size to 2,5 x 2,5 cm. It is however clear that not all the PSPs do have square logos which would fit provided size. For example rectangular logos twice as wide than high would be limited to 1,25 x 2,5 cm and might become indistinguishable. Because of that, we propose specifying maximum height of 2,5 cm and maximum width of 5 cm.
Thirdly, we suggest using lines in the table to facilitate readability of FID. When there is a higher amount of entries in the table, the table might seem disorganized for a reader. Consumers might feel discouraged to read the document.
Our other concerns are not that technical. We recommend including the date of drawing up the FID to the introductory part of the document. This information is missing in the template. After a lapse of time consumers might not know when the document was drawn up. In addition, PSPs might change their schedules of charges and consumers should have the possibility to compare the up to date FID with schedules of charges effective in the past. It would be much easier if there was a date of drawing up in the FID.
Article 10 of the draft ITS on FID allows member states to require so called “comprehensive cost indicator” to be included at the end of each FID. There is however no provision specifying how to calculate the value the indicator. If member states are to use this indicator, specific instructions on how to calculate it should be given.
We also propose to designate some blank space for “legal issues”. For example, in the Czech Republic it will be necessary to exclude application of § 1732 of the Czech Civil Code by stating that the FID is not binding proposal to conclude a contract. We assume it might be similar in other member states. Because of that, we recommend adding place for “legal issues” into the template.
Finally, we propose to distinguish packages of service including maintaining the account from packages of service without maintaining the account. It is necessary because of proper completion of FID document. If PSP offers a package of service including maintaining the account, in the table is firstly information about maintaining the account – not about the package. However, it is logical to inform about the package of service which includes maintaining the account on the first place. It might be confusing for consumers if there is on the first place “maintaining the account” and the package is mentioned much later (and a part of the package is maintaining the account again).
Nevertheless, packages of service without maintaining the account should not be mentioned on the first place because in this case it is more important for consumer to be informed about maintaining the account. Therefore we recommend distinguishing packages of service including maintaining the account from packages of service without maintaining the account and require their filling in different parts of FID.
Question 1: Do you agree with the EBA’s decision to take a broad approach to defining ‘service’? Please explain your reasoning.
Ministry of Finance of the Czech Republic (referred to as “MFCR”) agrees with the decision to define ‘service’ broadly. In order to achieve aims of the directive it is however necessary to allow member states to integrate standardized terms into their national lists with respect to specific market distinctions between member states. E. g. when provisional national list includes term “outgoing payment in CZK via the internet banking” the standardized term “credit transfer” should be integrated in a way in which the final national list includes the term “credit transfer in CZK via the internet banking”. In conclusion, Member States should be given enough flexibility to create national list based on narrow approach describing specific channel used.Different approach to integration of standardized terms (e. g. simply replacing terms from national lists by broader standardized terms) could make FIDs and SOFs documents useless – especially when providing information about banks with complicated pricing strategies – see example here (OneDrive link: https://1drv.ms/f/s!AiC6JncIH4RogZ5i-VQ_XmKEUCc4mA).
Question 4: Do you consider the terms and definitions proposed by the EBA in the Annexes to the draft RTS, and the resultant provisions in the Recitals of the draft RTS, to be adequate for achieving the aims of the Directive of enhancing transparency and comparability? If not, please provide alternative terms and definitions and their underlying rationale.
We do not consider definition of the term “providing a credit card” to be easily comprehensible. The definition does not make it clear that if only a part of the transaction amount is taken from the customer’s payment account the other part is being borrowed. See for example definitions of “credit card transaction” and “credit card” in Article 2 (5) and (34) of Regulation (EU) 2015/751 – these are much better suited to achieve the aims of the Directive.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.
We have several concerns regarding the proposed FID template. Firstly, Article 1(2)c of the draft ITS on FID states that the FID should be made using font type Arial. Reasoning for this decision can be found in Chapter 4.4 Article 81 of the Consultation Paper and in a referenced document. We unfortunately find this reasoning insufficient. Although the font is provided free of charge it is not provided under open source license such as GNU GPL but under different proprietary license – because of that, Linux based operating systems do not include it in their default version. We recommend using an open source alternative, e. g. font types Liberation Sans or Arimo.Secondly, Article 1(2)b of the draft ITS on FID allows payment service providers (PSPs) to use their own logo limited by size to 2,5 x 2,5 cm. It is however clear that not all the PSPs do have square logos which would fit provided size. For example rectangular logos twice as wide than high would be limited to 1,25 x 2,5 cm and might become indistinguishable. Because of that, we propose specifying maximum height of 2,5 cm and maximum width of 5 cm.
Thirdly, we suggest using lines in the table to facilitate readability of FID. When there is a higher amount of entries in the table, the table might seem disorganized for a reader. Consumers might feel discouraged to read the document.
Our other concerns are not that technical. We recommend including the date of drawing up the FID to the introductory part of the document. This information is missing in the template. After a lapse of time consumers might not know when the document was drawn up. In addition, PSPs might change their schedules of charges and consumers should have the possibility to compare the up to date FID with schedules of charges effective in the past. It would be much easier if there was a date of drawing up in the FID.
Article 10 of the draft ITS on FID allows member states to require so called “comprehensive cost indicator” to be included at the end of each FID. There is however no provision specifying how to calculate the value the indicator. If member states are to use this indicator, specific instructions on how to calculate it should be given.
We also propose to designate some blank space for “legal issues”. For example, in the Czech Republic it will be necessary to exclude application of § 1732 of the Czech Civil Code by stating that the FID is not binding proposal to conclude a contract. We assume it might be similar in other member states. Because of that, we recommend adding place for “legal issues” into the template.
Finally, we propose to distinguish packages of service including maintaining the account from packages of service without maintaining the account. It is necessary because of proper completion of FID document. If PSP offers a package of service including maintaining the account, in the table is firstly information about maintaining the account – not about the package. However, it is logical to inform about the package of service which includes maintaining the account on the first place. It might be confusing for consumers if there is on the first place “maintaining the account” and the package is mentioned much later (and a part of the package is maintaining the account again).
Nevertheless, packages of service without maintaining the account should not be mentioned on the first place because in this case it is more important for consumer to be informed about maintaining the account. Therefore we recommend distinguishing packages of service including maintaining the account from packages of service without maintaining the account and require their filling in different parts of FID.