Madrid, December 6 (Eficom).- The plenary session of the House of Representatives will discuss on Thursday a draft law presented by Somar on the so-called Rydal mortgages, those that were signed with “redemption at will” clauses, and for which there was no clearly agreed formula on the payment of interest or principal.
Their name comes from the Latin expression “redito ad libitum”, or “payment at will”, and in theory they allow the debtor to pay as they see fit, although in practice they are considered abusive since payments are not specified.
In October 2024, the Somar Initiative passed the first measure in the House of Representatives, and if approved now, it would mean that banks would be subject to a type of scrutiny through which the same entities would review variable mortgages signed before 2011.
In this way, the Somar bill aims to force banks to renegotiate thousands of variable mortgage loans granted before that date because they contained accounting errors, irregularities, or lack of transparency.
When signing a mortgage, among the most important things are the loan repayment period and the amount of installments and interest.
However, in some instruments, it was not clear how to calculate interest and how to amortize the capital, and there are some defects that this rule aims to correct.
It is not possible to know how many mortgages are involved in this method, because it is an individual condition and it will be necessary to review each of them to find the amortization conditions.
Hence, during the first parliamentary procedure, several deputies confirmed that the Bank of Spain had never referred to a situation relevant to those affected by the Riedal clauses.
Consumer associations highlight that this law protects consumers who have contracted mortgages with complex amortization, also called asymmetric amortization, which often leads to usury.
There are even mortgages that require you to pay more interest on the principal in the early years of the loan, as well as recapitalize the interest in the event of default.
Asufin understands that the proposed rule is intended to prevent the marketing of this type of mortgages and protect consumers who already have them from foreclosure or seizure due to non-payment of installments despite paying a large amount of interest.
Asfin adds that banks must offer an alternative installment system, because “despite all the rules of good practice to avoid foreclosure, many entities do not offer reasonable restructuring solutions to their clients.”
The association appreciates that unintelligible wording clauses are offensive and advocates that if there are discrepancies between technical aspects and financial agreements, the customer can choose the most appropriate option. Aficom