The client restructured this loan several times and did not meet the repayment terms. In fact, he could no longer pay the high rates he had committed to. Enforcement proceedings were also initiated.

“This is a unique case not only in terms of sums, but also in terms of the efforts of both sides to reach a compromise. The scenario proposed by the consumer involved reducing the bank’s balance sheet from 1.2 million lei to 960 thousand lei, and the balance of the debt was to be paid off within the next ten years. The initial scenario agreed to by the bank was to extend the payment term by only a few months and without giving a discount. This is where the negotiations began, which lasted for 165 days and during which we held more than 10 rounds of negotiations.

The peculiarity of the case is not only the discount offered by the bank, but also the efforts and resources invested by the consumer. I can say that we reached the middle in the negotiations: we achieved a short payment period of 800,000 lei, as the bank wanted, and a consistent reduction of the balance by more than 400,000 lei, as the consumer wanted. Fortunately, the consumer managed to get another loan, in another bank, and fully pay the sum of 800,000 lei, as the bank demanded. It was one of the few cases when both parties made serious compromises and made great financial efforts,” says Alina Radu, peace conciliator and lawyer at CSALB.

Overall, negotiations between consumers and banks were resolved in just 25 days in 2022, the best average since the Center for Alternative Dispute Resolution in Banking (CSALB) was established. This indicates the readiness of the parties to quickly find a solution through mutual compromise, as well as the improvement of reconciliation mechanisms by reducing the response time from banks and consumers.

Although the maximum time to resolve negotiations under the CSALB is 90 days and may exceed this period in the case of more complex negotiations (according to OG No. 38/2015), we have seen a reduction in the average duration of conciliation over the last four years. Thus, compared to 2019 and 2020, the decision is reached more than twice as fast. 90% of the 658 negotiations between consumers and banks held last year under CSALB resulted in both parties accepting solutions proposed by the Center’s mediators.

The fastest deals were in 2022 in one day (10 cases), but there were also 13 much more complex negotiations that ended after 150 days.

Negotiations are free for consumers, and the decision made (even at such a short notice) has the force of a court decision.

The mediators who completed negotiations the fastest are Alexandrou Ambrosius (12.4 days on average), followed by Septimiu Stoica (12.8 days) and Mihaela Budishtianu (13.2 days). The mediators who mediated most of the negotiations in 2022 are Camelia Popa (52 conciliation files), Roxana Mustetia (51 files) and Mihaela Budisteanu (48 files).

“The short settlement time is explained by two factors: quick and consistent response of banks and better information from an increasingly large category of consumers. Although some consumers know better what they want, banks are preparing the first offer since the appointment of mediators. This starting point significantly reduces the time spent on reconciliation compared to previous years when we did not know the bank’s position and waited days or even weeks for the first response. Now negotiations start quickly, the previous offer has more time to discuss and improve, and the chances of a better outcome increase.

In the nearly 50 negotiations I mediated last year, I noticed different approaches to consumers: some come well prepared, know their contract, and ask for specific things, such as a reduction or elimination of certain fees. Others are simply asking to lower the rate, not knowing how to do it. This is where we intervene, analyze the loan agreement and offer the bank a solution to reduce disbursement costs. It is important to note that the limits that banks negotiate are included in very strict economic calculations that the bank makes for each individual contract. Therefore, there are banks for which a good payment quality can be a positive argument in negotiations, and for others, a consumer’s poor payment quality increases the chances of reconciliation, because the bank wants, also as a result of some economic calculations, to reduce the risk of non-payment.

I pay attention to some situations where consumers, in their desire to get as much as possible, go beyond the boundaries of negotiations in which both parties want to win. For example, there was a recent case when the bank canceled commissions, satisfied the amounts demanded by the consumer and canceled fines for late payment. Although the consumer was granted full satisfaction of the initial claims, citing legal arguments, he increased his demands beyond the bank’s negotiations. As a result, the bank withdrew from the procedure, and the consumer was left without the benefits obtained at the first stage of negotiations.” , says Mihaela Budishteanu, CSALB peace conciliator and lawyer.

“Since some people have the right to receive financing that will allow them to pay 800 thousand lei to close another loan, it will be less difficult for them to take out a new loan, even if we are currently talking about high interest rates and difficult macroeconomic conditions.

However, for consumers with average incomes, any 100 lei above the tariff makes a difference. While ROBOR has fallen and inflation appears to be on a downward trend, the context encourages us to be cautious, at least this year. Instead of taking out a loan now at a high interest rate and thinking that this interest rate can be reduced in the not-so-distant future, it may be a better option for now to save the amounts associated with the installments for a purchase you make in the bank you want,” says Alexandru Peunescu, representative of the National Bank of Romania in the CSALB Coordination Council