Prudentiz (Poland)

1. Para. 9 of the Draft Guidelines: independent use of the criteria set out in art. 3(2) PAD
Where, as an exception, the only criterion applied is expensiveness of a service (i.e. the service generates significant costs for a consumer), the service should still be sufficiently popular among consumers (it cannot be of only a marginal importance in the market).

2. Differentiation among the services
The Draft Guidelines provide insufficient information on how to differentiate among particular services linked to a payment account.
The document generally deals with explanation of a scenario, where one service is being provided or ordered through different channels (p. 7-8, and para. 10 on p. 12), but it does not explain how to draw a distinction between similar services. This should, however, be indicated at least in a separated point of the guidelines, as only if the approach to differentiation between particular services does not vary among the Member States, CAs will be able to provide homogeneous lists of services (which is the aim of the guidelines, clearly expressed on p. 16).
The EBA should in particular refer to a relation between “services linked to a payment account” (as defined in the Payment Account Directive) and “payment services” (as defined in the Annex to the Payment Services Directive of 2007), the terms of which are independent from one another. Presumably, every payment service may be offered in one or more variations, each of them constituting a different service linked to a payment account. For example: a credit transfer constitutes a single payment service under the Payment Services Directive, whereas it may be offered in many configurations: “common” domestic credit transfer, express/immediate domestic transfer (processed in real-time), SEPA credit transfer, SWIFT credit transfer, etc. From the consumer’s point of view these services are usually presented as typologically similar, however they should rather be qualified as different services linked to a payment account under PAD, as each of them has different parameters and generates different costs for the consumer (e.g. cross-border credit transfer in EUR may be processed both as a SWIFT credit transfer or as a SEPA credit transfer). Moreover, some services linked to a payment account do not constitute payment services at all (e.g. a delivery of a bank statement on a consumer’s request, where a cost depends on the type of medium used for the transmission of information: paper, PDF file etc.)
Such differentiation among the services may be more challenging for CAs than the direct application of the criteria set out in art. 3(2) PAD, since there may be more inconsistencies among the national lists.
No, PAD provides an exhaustive list of criteria that may be applied by the CAs and no other criteria should be taken into account.
Sources of the supportive data should not only be „statistically robust”, but reliable as well. On the other hand, ad hoc collection of data or collection from firms should certainly not be obligatory, as it may generate excessive costs for both CAs and PSPs. As a compromise, the methodology used by CAs should be made publicly available by them.
Emilia Strońska
P