Are you about to sign a mortgage and your banker asks you to open a bank account to house all your income? Focus on your rights. When you sign a mortgage, in the mouth of the banker, the question of the bank account is obvious: you must open an account, transfer the regular debits, and domiciliate income, starting with salary.
Do you have the choice, or rather can you refuse this forced bank mobility? The legislator tried to put an order in these practices, via an ordinance published in June 2017. Before making reverse through the law Pacte, entered into force at the end of May 2019 What about today?
What does your banker have to say?
The attempt to supervise, aborted, had a consequence: the direct debit of the bank must be integrated into the commercial negotiation, to use the commentary on the internal amendment thanks to the Pacte law. In theory, the fact of domiciling your income in the lending bank is a negotiating element, to lower the credit rate, in the same way as borrower insurance, home insurance, the transfer of savings, the level of charges on the current account or even the subscription of shares in mutual benefit networks.
In fact, all the major banking networks make direct debit an essential element of real estate lending: in the vast majority of cases, if it is a question of financing the r main residence, the bank can accept concessions on the other elements of negotiation, but not on the domiciliation, or in a very exceptional way. Banks have the choice of their customers!
During the negotiation phase of the rate and the credit conditions, verbally, bracing yourself on the domiciliation of income may be counterproductive, detrimental to your financing conditions.
Can the bank impose a clause in the contract?
Contrary to the message peddled during the vote on the amendment of the deputies Dubost and Lescure, the Pacte law did not prohibit the domiciliation clauses! It only repealed the supervision measures in force since 2018. Result: the clause is neither prohibited nor authorized, it is a return to the previous situation: the vagueness. As confirmed by Mr. Feron-Poloni, it is now the recommendation of the Unfair Terms Commission dating from 2004 – which is authoritative. However, this commission deems it to be unbalanced with any clause of a loan offer obliging the borrower to domiciliate his income if this obligation is accompanied by no individual counterpart.
Translation? Any fuzzy clause is abusive! Good Finance goes further: A direct debit clause cannot be included in a framework contract, systematically, for all borrowers. As long as the rate grids are kept secret, the banks cannot demonstrate the reality of the counterparty.
Clearly, a bank can include a contractual clause on direct debit , but not in a generalized manner, and by clarifying clearly what is the advantage individualis. In this case, all costs related to direct debit (current account package or account maintenance costs, etc.) must be included in the calculation of the annual effective annual rate (1) .
Do you have to respect this direct debit?
To sum up, a borrower can hardly refuse the domiciliation of wages to his banker, during the negotiation phase, but this agreement is almost never included in the loan offer! In other words, nothing obliges you to respect this informal commitment over time.
If you ever want to change bank, for your main account, nothing prevents you (except in the rare cases of contracts incorporating a clause with a real individual counterpart). On the other hand, it will probably be necessary to keep an account in the lending bank, to be fed regularly, for the collection of loan payments.