As an obligation to compensate for the collection of ticket fees. Spokesman: Should pay more

The credit card company ICC is coming out cheaply in a settlement in a class action lawsuit filed against it, according to a position filed by Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit in the Central District Court.

According to the agreement, ICC must compensate customers for the collection of a ticket fee before it could be used and before the customer decided to use it, ie before activating (operating) the card. According to the representative plaintiff, the Debit Cards Law does allow the company to send a renewed card, but it cannot charge a card fee until the customer activates the new card.

In fact, the ombudsman announced that ICC must compensate consumers in an amount higher than that stipulated in the settlement agreement: NIS 1,142,770, for approximately 10,670 customers who meet the conditions set forth in the arrangement, reflecting a 7-month card fee. The client’s commissions. Therefore, she sees this as an indication of his consent to payment. Therefore, she will compensate 6 months back plus another month for additional security. The ombudsman also opposes this period of time stipulated in the agreement.

Before deciding on a compromise, as an argument that even if the debit card is not activated, it is not a worthless card, as it gives the customer the right to enjoy various services. Also, just as a customer pays a card fee even for a month during which he did not perform any card transaction, so he is also not exempt from paying a card fee who did not activate the card. According to her, a demand for active action on the part of the customer in order to prove his consent for the duration of the contract with her, constitutes a new condition that does not comply with the Debit Cards Law and the provisions of the agreement between her and her customers.

The position of the Ombudsman for the Settlement, which was formulated in cooperation with the Supervisor of Banks at the Bank of Israel and Advice and Legislation (Civil Law) in the Ministry of Justice, is contrary to the position of ICC.

In his position, he emphasizes that according to the Debit Cards Law, the card issuer may renew the debit card contract without requiring the customer to sign the new contract, but the customer’s charges will take effect only after the new card is issued to the customer, including the secret code. .

In addition, section 5 of the Payment Services Act stipulates that the customer’s charges will take effect subject to the fact that a means of payment has been made available to him in a manner that allows him to give a payment order through him. It was further determined that the burden of proving that the means of payment was made available to the customer in this way, rests with the payment service provider. That is, the language of the law and its purpose indicate the need for an indication confirming that the customer has received the debit card and that he is interested in renewing the uniform contract as a condition of his debit.

As a result, the ombudsman objects to the fact that in the settlement agreement it is stated that as part of the future settlement, when sending a new debit card to the customer a message will be sent to him, , That this proposal will lead to an anchoring of an illegal situation, and that the consent of the parties that the company will act to inform its customers about the payment of the ticket fee through a proper disclosure document, constitutes, in practice, an improper circumvention of the law requirement.

According to this arrangement, the existing and spoiled situation may continue, according to which a customer who receives a blocked card in the mail and chooses not to activate it will continue to pay card fees for an additional period that may continue even until the next card renewal date (48 months).

All this as stated because by law, the company can start charging for the card only if it has received an indication confirming that the customer has received the debit card and that he is interested in renewing the uniform contract as a condition of his debit. For example, by activating the card by the customer or receiving payment services on the card. The card arrives at the customer when it is blocked from issuing payment instructions and requires active removal of the block by identifying with the company. Therefore, after a reasonable period of time, its non-activation should be considered as non-renewal of the agreement with the card issuer and denial of entitlement to the collection of ticket fees without any consideration being provided.

The ombudsman also believes that the compensation offered in the settlement arrangement does not fairly and properly reflect the chances of a claim. In which a customer allegedly held a blocked card without being able to use it, does not constitute a fair remedy and does not properly reflect the chances of a claim.The company has data on the date on which the customer activated the card and these must be the basis of the settlement agreement.

The ombudsman is also interested in expanding the number of compensations. The parties have decided on a compromise in which only customers to whom a renewed card is sent will require compensation after the card expires and they pay a card fee for them. His acceptance.

According to the ombudsman’s position, the settlement arrangement discriminates against additional customers: for example, customers who activated the card for a significant period after receiving it) and therefore it is inappropriate.

It also held that the reasonableness of the compensation could not be examined in relation to the damage caused to the group members and the chances of a claim, in the absence of sufficient data, as the company did not provide information regarding the total damage of the group members repaired, but only information regarding the proposed compensation.

In addition, he referred to the decision according to which the full fee will be paid to the representative of the representative plaintiff within 30 days from the date on which the judgment allowing the settlement agreement becomes final. Providing a fee even before the actual implementation of the agreements in the settlement arrangement, will not encourage the attorney to monitor the actual implementation of the arrangement.