Primary tabs

Betaalvereniging Nederland (Dutch Payments Association)

In general
We appreciate EBA’s work in drafting the draft regulatory technical standards (RTS) setting out the Union standardised terminology for the most common services linked to a payment account, implementing technical standards (ITS) on the standardised presentation format of the fee information document (FID) and its common symbol, and finally the ITS of the standardised presentation format of the statement of fees (SoF) and its common symbol. We believe these RTS and ITS could help enhance transparency of payment accounts-related fees and information on a cross-border level within the European Union (EU), as well as in some (but certainly not all) Member States on a domestic level.

Our key concerns
For several EU Member States, such as the Netherlands, we believe that the requirements as set in the Payment Account Directive (PAD) on the standardised terminology for the most common services linked to a payment account, the FID and the SoF will add very limited value for its domestic consumers. This because payment account-related services in these Member States have already simple, transparent and comparable fee-structures. For example, for Dutch consumers (very) low and transparent flat-fees* for payment account packages apply. These payment account package fees include, inter alia, unlimited numbers credit transfers (incl. iDEAL-payments), standing orders, direct debits, debit card payments, the provision of a debit card (and often a credit card also), cash withdrawals at ATMs and the (unlimited) use of internet banking as well as mobile banking app(s).

For Account Servicing Payment Service Providers (AS PSPs) in the Netherlands, complying to art. 4 and 5 of the PAD will mainly be a bureaucratic and costly** exercise, despite of what was claimed in a study*** for the European Commission’s assessment of the economic impact of various policy measures to improve the transparency and comparability of fees in the payment accounts market. This study concluded that the costs for AS PSPs are expected to be low, irrespective of any technical specification chosen. EBA refers to this study in paragraph 6.1.4 (Cost-Benefit Analysis) on page 99 of its Consultation Paper (CP).

We believe that the proposed draft ITS of the FID and the SoF seem to set far too strict requirements in lay-out. The focus should lay in making the FID and SoF consumer friendly, clear and transparent rather than focusing on the number of pages or the line space to be used. The excessively large font size leads to higher paper consumption, especially when a lot of information is required. We believe that the proposed formalistic and prescriptive approach regarding the format (fonts, letter sizes, line spacing, colors, portrait-size, etc.) to be used, will turn out to be counterproductive. And especially for those Member where payment account-related fees already are relatively low and transparent. Furthermore, consumers have to be able to see in an easily readable format the FID as well as the SoF, therefore AS PSPs should have the possibility to adjust the FID – and SoF formats to adapt them for the channel and type of device used by consumers (PCs, smartphones, tablets, and so on). We are not convinced that such high level of detail and prescription as proposed by EBA’s ITS for the FID and SoF is needed to achieve the overall objectives of the PAD in this context: enhancing transparency and comparability. We are afraid that the draft ITS and RTS tend to loose sight of the principle of proportionality. When we take all this into account, we strongly recommend EBA to provide more flexibility in the ITS for AS PSPs, mainly as regard to the FID - and SoF template.

Moreover, the FID and SoF are not the only information documents that consumers have to be provided with under EU and national law (for example under PSD2). Consumers are already known with current AS PSPs’ terms and conditions, but not (yet) with the glossary, FID - and SoF template. This will create confusion for consumers. As with regard to the FID, we believe that for the vast majority its aim of enhancing comparison and transparency will already be met via the implementation of the national comparison websites as required by art. 7 of the PAD. This especially applies to those Member States with high internet penetration amongst consumers (in The Netherlands this is 97% according to Statistics Netherlands, CBS). We are afraid that the FID will turn out to be a document that will be rarely used by consumers, especially in aforementioned Member States.

EBA states that the terms used in the national lists of the most representative services linked to a payment account will have to be used in the FID and the SoF, and also “in all contractual, commercial and marketing information to consumers”. We believe the latter is disproportionate; it will be a huge task for AS PSPs to integrate these terms in all their consumer communication materials, also in cases when the communication does not directly relates to payment accounts, but, for example, to mortgages or investments in securities. We believe this would go way beyond the PAD’s objectives, and will turn out to be not feasible in practice. We believe that the main focus here should lay solely on the FID (and the glossary) and the SoF. We therefore strongly recommend EBA to limit its proposed requirements regarding the usage of the terms used in the national lists to only that contractual, commercial and marketing information that specifically and directly relates to AS PSPs’ payment account-related offering.

Lastly, considering the need to adapt IT system of AS PSPs to comply with the information requirements of the draft RTS and ITS, we would welcome an extension of the implementation period. It will also allow to ensure further consistency in the approach between the various legislations which should enter into force shortly: for example the revised Payment Services Directive (PSD2). A more coordinated approach with other legislative requirements on specifically the SoF would be beneficiary for consumers in order for them to get a better overview of the initiated changes to the contractual relationship (same contracts, conditions or documents). It would notably avoid having consumers to be overloaded by an important amount of papers and information at different moments, when they could be displayed together.

Due to PSD2, Third Party Providers (TPPs) will be able to access payment accounts (only with the explicit consent of the account holder) for providing payment initiation – and/ or account information services. These TPPs are not regulated by the PAD’s requirements, and therefore EBA’s proposed draft ITS on providing for a FID and SoF does not apply to these parties. We believe that by setting (too) strict norms for standardization in the terms and definitions (glossary), FID and SoF (and possibly even in other relevant contractual, commercial and marketing information to consumers – see above) could harm a level playing field between AS PSPs (who offer ‘traditional’ payment accounts) and TPPs, who position themselves between the payment account holder and the AS PSP and/or the AS PSP and the merchant. Also we note that when AS PSPs are forced into the ‘one size fits all’ regime as required by EBA’s proposed ITS on the FID and SoF and RTS on Union standardised terminology, it could have a negative impact in AS PSPs’ ability to innovate in their payment account-related offering.

* Source: European Commission, Directive on payment accounts - Factsheet 1 - Presentation and comparison of payment account fees. Figures on page 2 and 3. The factsheet can be downloaded at: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_food-safety/pressroom/docs/bank-accounts-factsheet-01_en.pdf

** The costs of AS PSPs in The Netherlands to comply with art. 4 and 5 of the PAD are preliminary estimated at 7.5 million euro for one-time implementation costs and 7 million as for annual recurring costs. For more information we refer to the Dutch (draft) ‘Implementation decree payment accounts’ (Implementatiebesluit richtlijn betaalrekeningen), which implements the PAD-articles relating to the comparability of fees related to payment accounts and payment account switching into Dutch national legislation. For more information, we refer to https://www.internetconsultatie.nl/implementatiebesluitrichtlijnbetaalrekeningen.

*** COM (2013): Quantification of the economic impact of EU action to improve fee transparency, comparability and mobility in the Internal Market for personal payment accounts.

Question 1: Do you agree with the EBA’s decision to take a broad approach to defining ‘service’? Please explain your reasoning?
Yes, we agree with EBA to use a relatively high level of abstraction (Option A). We believe this is the most suited way to deal with the – still existing and important – national differences* in payment account-related services and payment habits and preferences, which came up clearly in the national provisional lists as provided by the national CAs. These differences, in our view, are not to be underestimated. National authorities can still add, when defining the more specific types of sub-services/-categories that feature on their respective national lists, taking into account the relevant market practices in their countries.

Consumers must easily be able to distinguish different kinds of payment account-related services and what is included in each service. In that context, the definitions of the core services, which EBA has proposed to include in its EU-standardised terminology, are very important. This because these definitions provide for the framework (boundaries) under which the competent authorities of EU Member States will need to be able to group their selected national specific types or sub-categories of (payment account related) services.


* As for payments accounts, in some Member States it is common use to charge consumers on a per payment transaction basis. In other Member States, such as in The Netherlands and Sweden, flat-fee payment account packages, including an unlimited number of payment transactions, use of internet- and mobile banking, the provision of a debit card (and sometime also a credit card), apply for consumers. Even between countries that are physically very close to each other, there can be considerable differences in domestic consumer payment habits and market specificities, such as the height of internet- and mobile banking penetration, if – and if so, how often – cheques are still used, differences in overdraft facilities on current accounts, the way people tend to pay in physical stores (cash versus debit and/or credit card) and in online shops (such as the high usage of iDEAL in the Netherlands) and differences in value propositions and pricing structures of AS PSPs.
Yes, taking our answer as provided to question 1 into consideration, we assume that the core services EBA has selected when developing the standardised terms and definitions is suitable to achieve the aims of the PAD. However, we do believe that significant changes are needed in the wording of the services’ Dutch terms and definitions as proposed by EBA in the Annex to the draft RTS (page 65 of EBA’s CP). For more information on this matter, we refer to our response to question 4.
We support EBA’s aim to draft the standardised terms and definitions using clear, simple and consumer-oriented language and avoiding legal terminology. This to guide consumers in understanding and comparing payment account-related fees of several AS PSPs. Our main concern however, is that we expect that AS PSPs’ compliance with the PAD-requirements on the standardised terms an definitions will – unfortunately – add very limited value for consumers in The Netherlands. The proposed standardised terms and definitions may very well lead to consumer confusion, because consumers are well known with their current AS PSPs terms and conditions, but not (yet) with the glossary as prescribed in art. 4 (4) of the PAD. Therefore, we assume that AS PSPs are allowed to mention, for example in a footnote in the glossary, that they are obliged to provide this glossary as a result of European legislation (the PAD) aiming to improve consumers’ transparency and comparability on a pan-EU scale.

We believe that the process of integrating the standardised terms and definitions into the national provisional lists will need to be aligned with the perceived average literacy of consumers and their capacity to understand the language and meaning of those terms and definitions. We believe some of the final terms and definitions may be easily embedded in the commercial language and information, while with some others problems can eventually occur for reasons linked to the use of expressions unknown to the majority of consumers and/or not sufficiently clear. Therefore, considering that the resulting integration of the EU standardised terminology into each national provisional list will be challenging, we strongly support that some degree of flexibility should be provided in the definitions of those terminologies.

Paragraph 44 on page 15 of EBA’s CP states that the terms and definitions of the EU-standardised terminology as set in the Annex of the Draft RTS on standardised terminology (page 45 – 74 of EBA’s CP) will have to be integrated into the national provisional lists. The resulting terms will have to be used in the FID, the SoF, “and in all contractual, commercial and marketing information to consumers”. We would perceive it as being quite proportionate to require AS PSPs to incorporate these terms and definitions in the FID and SoF, but certainly not “in all other contractual, commercial and marketing information to consumers”. We therefore strongly recommend EBA to limit its proposed requirements regarding the usage of the terms used in the national lists to only that contractual, commercial and marketing information that specifically and directly relates to AS PSPs’ payment account-related offering.

In paragraph 46 and 47 (page 16 of EBA’s CP), EBA explains that it has chosen to use the third person in defining the Union standardised terminology and its definitions. However, for a text to be optimally comprehensive for Dutch consumers, most AS PSPs in the Netherlands use the first and/ or second person in their consumer communication, incl. in their terms and conditions. In the Netherlands, using the third person in consumer communication is often regarded as being conservative or even bureaucratic. We note that the integration of the Union standardised terminology to the national lists is not regulated, thus we assume that it should be left to the national competent authorities to decide on whether the first, second or third person is used in the language of the national lists. We do not expect that such flexibility will have significant negative impact for EU-consumers when wanting to compare payment account-related offerings of AS PSPs located in their own - and other EU Member States.
We value EBA’s efforts in fulfilling its (complicated) mandate to come up with terms and definitions that are valid and meaningful for consumers in all 28 EU-Member States. Although we believe that the proposed structure of the list is suitable to fulfill its purpose, we have strong doubts whether the content is actually suitable within The Netherlands. We are afraid that the proposed standardised terms and definitions will lead to consumer confusion and could even lead to a decline in satisfaction of AS PSPs’ consumer clients in The Netherlands.

We strongly advise EBA to implement the following amendments concerning the terms and definitions used in the Annex of the draft RTS, specifically relating to the Dutch version of the draft RTS’ Annex as proposed by EBA on page 65 of its CP:
• In the terms and definitions the term ‘rekening’ [English translation: ‘account’] is used consequently. However, an ‘account’ can be a payment account, but also a savings account, mortage account or trading account. With regard to what ‘account’ means in the context of the PAD, we assume that ‘account’ relates to ‘payment account’ only. Chapter II as well as art. 2.3 of the PAD clearly point out the usage of ‘payment account’ in this matter. Therefore, we strongly believe that ‘rekening’ [English translation: ‘account’] should be consistently changed into ‘betaalrekening’ [English translation: ‘payment account’].
• The term ‘Beheren van de rekening’ [English translation: ‘Maintaining the account’] and its definition are quite unclear to us. We believe the Dutch translation ‘Aanhouden van de betaalrekening’ better matches its English equivalent of ‘Maintaining the payment account’. We therefore propose to change the word ‘Beheren’ into ‘Aanhouden’ [English translation: ‘Maintaining’ or ‘Holding’].
• The word ‘Aanbieden’ [English translation: ‘Providing] in the term ‘Aanbieden van een betaalpas’ [English translation: ‘Providing a debit card’] as well as in the term ‘Aanbieden van een credit card’ [English translation: ‘Providing a credit card’] refers in the Dutch language only to the presentment of a debit and/ or credit card, and not to the actual use these payment instruments. We therefore believe that the word ‘Aanbieden’ should be deleted in both the terms. We believe that the terms ‘Betaalpas’ and ‘Credit card’ will suffice.
• Furthermore, the proposed definitions of the terms ‘Aanbieden van een betaalpas’ [English translation: ‘Providing a debit card’] and ‘Aanbieden van een credit card’ [English translation: ‘Providing a credit card’] both contain the Dutch word ‘afgeboekt’ [English translation: ‘is taken’]. ‘Afboeken’ refers to a accounting/ bookkeeping activity, and is therefore less suitable to be used for consumer communication. A more appropriate common Dutch word to replace ‘afboeken’ is ‘afschrijven’, meaning that the balance of the payment account is reduced with the amount of the payment transaction. We therefore believe the word ‘afgeschreven’ should be used in the proposed terms and definitions instead of ‘afgeboekt’.
• The definition of ‘Aanbieden van een credit card’ [English translation: ‘Providing a credit card’] contains the following sentence: “In een kredietovereenkomst tussen de aanbieder en de klant wordt bepaald of de klant rente in rekening wordt gebracht voor het opnemen van krediet.” [English translation: “A credit agreement between the provider and the customer determines whether interest will be charged to the customer for the borrowing.”]. This suggest that, in case of the provision of a credit card, such a credit agreement always (should) exist. However, in The Netherlands a ‘credit card’ is in far most cases a non-revolving credit card, without the existence of a credit agreement between provider and customer, but with a possible arranged overdraft agreement. Therefore, we recommend EBA to delete the sentence “In een kredietovereenkomst tussen de aanbieder en de klant wordt bepaald of de klant rente in rekening wordt gebracht voor het opnemen van krediet.” in the definition of ‘Aanbieden van een credit card’. If such a credit agreement should mandatory for AS PSPs and their consumer clients who hold non revolving credit cards, it will lead to unnecessary extra costs for AS PSPs and to confusion amongst consumers.
• In the definition of ‘Rood staan’ [English translation: ‘Arranged overdraft’], the following is stated: “(…), en of de klant vergoedingen en rente in rekening wordt gebracht.” [English translation: “(…), and whether fees and interest will be charged tot the customer.”]. In the Netherlands interest is charged in case of overdraft, but no fees are charged. Therefore the words ‘vergoedingen en’ [English translation: ‘and interest’] can lead to confusion and should be deleted in the definition. Please note that art. 2 (25 and 26) of the PAD refer to ‘overdraft facility’ and ‘overrunning’ as the appropriate wording. Art. 2 (25) states: “‘overdraft facility’ means an explicit credit agreement whereby a payment service provider makes available to a consumer funds which exceed the current balance in the consumer’s payment account”. And art. 2 (26) states: “‘overrunning’ means a tacitly accepted overdraft whereby a payment service provider makes available to a consumer funds which exceed the current balance in the consumer’s payment account or the agreed overdraft facility”. We would recommend EBA to use these terms instead of ‘Arranged overdraft’.
• In the definition of ‘Overboeking’ [English translation: ‘Sending money’], the following is stated: ‘(…) maakt op instructie van de klant over (…)’ [English translation: ‘(…) transfers (…) on the instruction of the customer (…)’]. We believe it will be easier to understand for Dutch consumers if these words are rephrased into: ‘(…) schrijft in opdracht van de klant over (…)’ [English translation: ‘(…) transfers (…) on behalf of the customer (…)’]. Please note that in this context the words ‘in opdracht’ are also used instead of ‘op instructie’ in the Dutch Civil Code (Burgerlijk Wetboek), which implements art. 4 (24) of PSD2 which provides for a definition of ‘credit transfer’.
• The term ‘Periodieke betaalopdracht’ [English translation: ‘Standing order’] is not in line with the Dutch term ‘Overboeking’ (as stated in the row above ‘Periodieke betaalopdracht’). We believe it is more clear for Dutch consumers to change ‘Periodieke betaalopdracht’ into ‘Periodieke overboeking’ [English translation: ‘Standing order]. Furthermore, we believe that in the definition of ‘Periodieke betaalopdracht’ the word ‘regelmatig’ [English translation: ‘regular’] should be changed into ‘periodiek’ [English translation: ‘periodic’] to be consistent with the corresponding term ‘Periodieke overboeking’. Furthermore, we advise to change the word ‘maakt’ into ‘schrijft’.
• We recommend to change the term ‘Automatische overschrijving’ [English translation: ‘Direct debit’] into ‘Incasso’. This because ‘Incasso’ (in the meaning of ‘automatische afschrijving’) is far better known amongst - and more often used by – the Dutch. We believe that using the term ‘Automatische overschrijving’ will lead to misunderstandings. In this definition we also advise to change the word ‘maakt’ into ‘schrijft’.
• We propose to change the term ‘Opname van geld’ [English translation: ‘Cash withdrawal’] into ‘Opname van contant geld’. This because ‘geld’ [English translation: ‘money’] can be both read as being physical (banknotes and coins) as well as being electronic (when, for example, paying with a debit card). ‘Contant geld’ means ‘cash (banknotes and coins)’. Therefore we also propose to add the word ‘contant’ in the accompanying definition: ‘De klant neemt contant geld op van zijn of haar betaalrekening’. Furthermore, we note that in the majority of cases consumers in The Netherlands use their debit card when withdrawing cash at ATMs, and to a much lesser extent a credit card. Withdrawing cash at the cash counter at bank branches has become a quite rare event.
• We advise to list the terms (incl. their definitions) in the same order as mentioned in the FID - and SoF template as much as possible.
• Taken all the above suggested amendments into account, this would lead to the following list of standardised terms and definitions in the Dutch language:
o Aanhouden van de betaalrekening: De aanbieder van de betaalrekening houdt de betaalrekening voor de klant aan.
o Betaalpas: De aanbieder van de betaalrekening verschaft een betaalpas die gekoppeld is aan de betaalrekening van de klant. Het bedrag van elke transactie die met de betaalpas wordt uitgevoerd, wordt onmiddellijk afgeschreven van de betaalrekening van de klant.
o Credit card: De aanbieder van de betaalrekening verschaft een credit card die gekoppeld is aan de betaalrekening van de klant. Die credit card mag de klant gedurende een overeengekomen periode gebruiken. Bij het gebruik van de credit card wordt het totaalbedrag van de uitgevoerde transacties ofwel volledig ofwel gedeeltelijk op een overeengekomen datum afgeschreven van de betaalrekening van de klant.
o Rood staan: De aanbieder van de betaalrekening en de klant komen vooraf overeen dat aan de klant meer geld ter beschikking kan worden gesteld dan het beschikbare tegoed op de betaalrekening van de klant. In deze overeenkomst wordt ook het maximumbedrag bepaald dat ter beschikking kan worden gesteld, en of de klant rente in rekening wordt gebracht.
o Overboeking: De aanbieder van de betaalrekening schrijft in opdracht van de klant geld over van de betaalrekening van de klant naar een andere betaalrekening.
o Periodieke overboeking: De aanbieder van de betaalrekening schrijft in opdracht van de klant periodiek een vast geldbedrag over van de betaalrekening van de klant naar een andere betaalrekening.
o Incasso: De klant machtigt iemand anders (ontvanger) om de aanbieder van de betaalrekening te instrueren om geld over te maken van de betaalrekening van de klant naar die van de ontvanger. De aanbieder van de betaalrekening schrijft vervolgens geld over aan de ontvanger op een door de klant en de ontvanger overeengekomen datum of data. Het bedrag kan variëren.
o Opname van contant geld: De klant neemt contant geld op van zijn of haar eigen betaalrekening.
We have serious doubts whether the proposed FID template is suited to achieve its aims; to enhance comparison and transparency for consumers. We agree that the initial test results, as explained in paragraph 65 to 69 (page 20 and 21 of EBA’s CP), do not show unambiguous, clear and convincing evidence that the standardised presentation format of the FID (and SoF) actually helps consumers to easy understand this document. Therefore, EBA implemented several changes in the FID template, as described in Chapter 4.4.1 (page 23 to 25) of its CP. It would give us more confidence if the revised FID template is retested to prove that the changes made actually improve consumers being able to understand the FID.

Furthermore, according to paragraph 63 and 64 (page 20 of EBA’s CP), initial consumer testing took place in only a relatively limited number of Member States. Quantitative research was conducted in eight - and qualitative research in (only) two Member States. We understand EBA’s arguments that there has been relatively limited time and budget available for this consumer testing. However, we believe that the test results would be (much) more representative when a sufficient number of consumers residing in at least a majority of EU-Member States would have been involved in the testing. We therefore encourage EBA to retest the current FID template at consumers residing in at least the majority of EU Member States.

We believe that the aim of enhancing comparison and transparency in this matter will already be met for the largest part via the implementation of the national comparison websites as required by art. 7 of the PAD. Especially in those Member States, like The Netherlands, with high internet penetration amongst consumers (in NL: 97% (according to Statistics Netherlands, CBS)). We are afraid that the FID will turn out to be a document that will be rarely used by consumers for comparison purposes, especially in aforementioned Member States.

Art. 4 of the PAD mandates EBA to develop a format for the FID, that should be short and be presented and laid out in a way that is clear and easy to read, using characters of a readable size. We believe that the details as set out in the proposed draft ITS of the FID go much further than this. It even seems to go in the opposite direction by setting far too strict requirements. We are not convinced that this high level of detail and prescription is needed to achieve the objectives of the PAD. As stressed by the EBA in paragraph 78 (page 23 of its CP), the standardised FID should be “clear when read by consumers as well as easy to be produced by PSPs”. The focus should lay on making the FID consumer friendly, clear and transparent rather than focusing on the number of pages or the line-spacing to be used. We are afraid that the proposal tends to loose sight of the principle of proportionality in that context. The proposed FID template does not seem to meet the aim of being a document which is “easy to produce for PSPs”. We believe that a too formalistic and prescriptive approach regarding the FID format used, will turn out to be counterproductive and costly. This applies especially to those Member where payment account-related fees are relatively low and transparent (such as in The Netherlands). Consumers have to be able to see the FID in an easily readable format, therefore AS PSPs should have the possibility to adjust its format to adapt it for the channel and type of device used by consumers (PCs, smartphones, tablets, and so on). When all the above taking into account, we strongly recommend EBA to provide more flexibility for AS PSPs as regard to the requirements of the FID-template.

Furthermore, we wonder how consumers will be able to compare the FIDs of different AS PSPs located in different EU Member States, when these FIDs will likely to be written in another Member States’ language. Moreover, the FID (and SoF) are not the only information documents that customers have to be provided with under EU - and national law (for example under PSD2). Therefore, we assume that AS PSPs are allowed to mention– for example in a footnote in the glossary, FID and SoF – that AS PSPs are obliged to provide for these documents due to European legislation (the PAD), aiming to improve consumers’ transparency and comparability on a pan-EU scale. Furthermore, we believe that by setting too strict norms for standardization in the terms and definitions used (glossary) and the FID could have a negative impact on AS PSPs in their ambitions to innovate in their offering of payment account related services.

With regard to the FID template as proposed in the draft ITS and its Annex (page 83 and 84 of EBA’s CP), we strongly recommend EBA to implement the following amendments:
• The FID template uses the term ‘account’ several times. ‘Payment account’ is only mentioned once, under the second bullet: “(…) the main services linked to the payment account” of the first page of the FID template. However, an ‘account’ can be a payment account, but also a savings account, mortage account or trading account. With regard to what ‘account’ means in context of the PAD and the ITS of the FID and SoF and RTS on Union standardised terminology, we assume that ‘account’ relates to ‘payment account’ only. Chapter II as well as art. 2.3 of the PAD clearly point out the usage of ‘payment account’ in this matter. Therefore, we strongly believe that ‘account’ needs to be consistently changed into ‘payment account’.
• Regarding the ‘comprehensive cost indicator’ (being a Member State option), recital 19 of the PAD states: “Member States should be able to require key indicators such as a comprehensive cost indicator summarizing the overall annual cost of the payment account for consumers to be provided with the fee information document.”. The example-FID (page 30 of EBA’s CP) does not illustrate how this ‘Comprehensive cost indicator’ should be calculated and filled-in. Art. 10 of the draft ITS (page 82 of EBA’s CP) does not provide sufficient information on what ‘Comprehensive cost indicator’ exactly means, nor how the box (as displayed in the last box of the second page of the FID template) should be filled-in. We therefore suggest EBA to clarify what ‘Comprehensive cost indicator’ exactly means and provides for an calculation-example, or completely delete this requirement from its final draft ITS for the FID.
• Absence of date. As the FID is derived from the pricelist of an AS PSP, and as the pricelist is regularly changed/adjusted, it is necessary to ensure that the consumer is able to connect the FID with a particular edition of a pricelist. We therefore advise EBA to incorporate the ‘Date of publication: [date to be inserted]’ in the FID.
• NB: Please note that paragraph 69 refers, regarding to more detailed test results and subsequent actions taken by EBA, to Chapter 3.5 and 3.6 of EBA’s CP. We assume that it should refer to Chapter 4.4 and 4.5 instead.
We consider that the common symbol in the FID template does not clearly represent its purposes. As we explained in our response to question 5, it would give us more confidence if the revised FID template is retested to prove that the changes made actually improve consumers being able to understand the FID. This also applies for the proposed FID’s common symbol; Recital 20 of the PAD establishes that the FID should be clearly distinguishable from other communications. However, according to paragraph 91 (page 24 of EBA’s CP) only 50% of the consumers involved in the testing deemed that the symbol would make the FID distinguishable from other documentation. Even 39 % of consumers disagreed that the symbol makes the document distinguishable from other documentation. However, despite these questionable results, EBA decided to not change the FID symbol as it explains in paragraph 92 (page 25 of EBA’s CP). We suggest to have the symbol constituted of the acronyms of the FID with EU acronyms. Indeed, many consumers will not be aware of the symbol and may not understand why, besides the AS PSP’s normal price list, they also receive the FID.

Furthermore, according to paragraph 63 and 64 (page 20 of EBA’s CP), initial consumer testing took place in only a relatively limited number of Member States. Quantitative research was conducted in eight - and qualitative research in (only) two Member States. We understand EBA’s arguments that there has been relatively limited time and budget available for this consumer testing. However, we believe that the test results would be much more representative when a sufficient number of consumers residing in at least the majority of EU-Member States would have been involved in the testing. We therefore encourage EBA to retest the current FID template, including its symbol, at consumers residing in at least the majority of EU Member States.
We value EBA’s efforts in drafting the proposed instructions for the completion of the FID template. However, we have serious doubts whether the proposed instructions for the completion of the FID template contained in the draft ITS is suited to lead to enhanced comparison and transparency for consumers will in all circumstances. Our concerns relate to the following points:
• Consumers have to be able to see the FID in an easily readable format. Therefore, we believe AS PSPs should have the possibility to adjust its format to adapt it for the channel and type of device used by consumers (PCs, smartphones, tablets, and so on). Therefore, the ITS should provide for a sufficiently flexible FID format, in order to remain usable for the channels used by AS PSPs to provide their FIDs to consumers.
• The proposed Draft ITS of the FID do not provide for any guidance on how AS PSPs should integrate possible existing tiered pricing models, volume discounts, rebates, currency conversion rates (for example when withdrawing cash at ATMs outside the Eurozone) different pricing models used for specific customer segments, et cetera, with regard to the fees and interest rates of their payment account-related offering in the FID. We recommend EBA to provide for more guidance on this matter in its final Draft ITS.
• When an AS PSP offers more than one payment account package (such as most AS PSPs in The Netherlands do), recital 5 of the draft ITS (page 77 of EBA’s CP) states: “(…) In order to make it easier for the consumer to understand the content of the different types of packages and their fees, the fee information document should list the packages separately. (…)” This could be interpreted as when, for example, an AS PSP offers four separate payment account packages, it needs to list each payment account package (including its services and additional fees) one by one in one and the same FID. However, this does not seem to match with art. 1 (3) of the Draft ITS of the FID (page 78 of EBA’s CP), stating: “Where payment service providers offer more than one account as referred to in Article 4(1) of Directive 2014/92/EU, the payment service providers shall provide a consumer with a fee information document for each account available.”. Art. 9 (2) of the draft ITS (page 81 of EBA’s CP) does not provide much clearance on this either: “Where payment services providers offer more than one package and the additional fees referred to in paragraph 1 differ dependent on the package, payment service providers shall list the different fees separately for each package and use the brand name of the package, where applicable.”. In other words, it is not clear to us if our above-mentioned example-AS PSP needs to draft one FID or four separate FIDs explaining each payment account package its offers separately. The integration of all payment account packages into one FID would lead to a multiplication in the number of pages, with unclear benefits considering that the PAD’s aims is to compare the fees related to a payment account. Indeed, the longer the list of packages, the less easy it will be to compare between packages. However, if an AS PSP offers, for example, 10 different payments account packages (such as a payment account especially targeted at students, people with do not use internet banking, people who only want to digital banking services (no paper payment account statements etc.), affluent clients, young professionals, etc.), issuing 10 separate FIDs will also not make comparison more easy. We therefore strongly advice EBA to provide for some flexibility in its final draft ITS on the FID, e.g. that an AS PSP is able to decide what’s best its (potential) consumer clients (issuing separate FIDs for each payment account package it offers, or issuing one integrated FID containing all payment accounts packages it offers). An alternative suggestion that we propose, is that an ASPSP only is obliged to offer one FID, relating to its most sold payment account package.
• In Recital 8 of the draft ITS (page 77 of EBA’s CP) the wording ‘(…) in the fee information document.’ should be replaced by ‘(…) with the fee information document.’ to match the exact wording of Recital 19 of the PAD.
• We note that the services mentioned in the example-FID (paragraph 111 on page 29 – 30 of EBA’s CP) do not always match the prescribed terms as mentioned in the Annex of the Draft RTS on Union standardised terminology (page 53 of EBA’s CP). For example ‘debit card’ in the example-FID versus ‘Providing a debit card’ in the Annex of the Draft RTS. We understand from the example-FID that it will be possible that in the FID mentions only part of a term as described in the (Draft) RTS on Union standardised terminology. However, we encourage EBA to provide unambiguous clearance on this matter in its final Draft ITS.
• The example-FID (page 29 – 30 of EBA’s CP) illustrates that the monthly costs of the ‘Package of services’ is 10 euro. The ‘services’ table below indicates that ‘Maintaining the account’ costs 10 euro per month. It is not clear to us whether these costs are to be summed with the costs for the ‘Package of services’ or not. This makes the example-FID not clear to us. However, looking at both the ‘Package’- and ‘Services’-box as mentioned in the FID template of the Annex (page 83 of EBA’s CP) of the draft ITS, it seems to us that EBA may have made a mistake when drafting the example-FID. The text “Package consists of: - 5 credit transfers (…) 1 debit card” in the ‘Package’-box of the example-FID (page 29 of EBA’s CP) needs to be moved towards the ‘General account service’ of the ‘Service’-box.
• Recital 8 and art. 10 of the draft RTS (page 77 and 82 of EBA’s CP) refer to the ‘comprehensive cost indicator’. As we have mentioned in our answer to question 5 and 6, we are not sure what ‘comprehensive cost indicator’ means, nor how the box (as displayed in the last box of the second page of the FID template) should be filled-in. We recommend EBA to provide more guidance in its final Draft ITS , or completely delete this requirement.
• For reasons of completeness, we suggest to amend recital 9 of the draft RTS (page 77 of EBA’s CP) with the following text (placed between brackets): “This Regulation is based on the draft implementing technical standards submitted by the European Banking Authority (EBA) to the Commission.” into “This Regulation is based on the draft implementing technical standards [on the standardised presentation format of the fee information document and its common symbol, under Article 4(6) of Directive 2014/92/EU [Payment Accounts Directive]] submitted by the European Banking Authority (EBA) to the Commission.”
• Recital 4 of the draft ITS (page 77 of EBA’s CP) states: “Since the fee information document should be easily produced by payment service providers, there should be clear instructions for the payment service providers on how to complete the fee information document.”. We believe, taken our answers to question 5, 6, 7 and 8 into account, that the proposed Draft ITS on the FID are quite difficult to follow and interpret. We expect that to compose the FID will turn out to be a quite complex and challenging task for AS PSPs.
• Article 1 (3) of the proposed Draft EBA ITS on the FID (page 78 of EBA’s CP) states: “Where payment service providers offer more than one account as referred to in Article 4(1) of Directive 2014/92/EU, the payment service providers shall provide a consumer with a fee information document for each account available.”. We strongly advice EBA to provide for some flexibility in its final draft ITS on the FID on this matter. If an AS PSP offers, for example, 10 different consumer payments account packages (such as payment account packages targeted at students, at people with do not use internet banking, at people who only want digital banking services (no paper payment account statements etc.), to affluent clients, to young professionals, etc.), issuing 10 separate FIDs will not make comparison more easy. On the other hand, integrating all its consumer payment accounts (in the Netherlands these payment accounts are referred to as ‘payment account packages’) into one FID will lead to a multiplication in the number of pages, with unclear benefits considering that the aim of the PAD is to compare the fees related to a payment account. We believe that an AS PSP is very well able to decide what is best for its (potential) consumer clients (issuing separate FIDs for each payment account package it offers, or issuing one integrated FID containing all payment accounts packages it offers). An alternative suggestion that we propose, is that an ASPSP only is obliged to offer one FID, relating to its most sold payment account (package).
• In the draft ITS the term ‘account’ is often used. However, an ‘account’ can be a payment account, but also a savings account, mortage account or trading account. With regard to what ‘account’ means in context of the PAD, we assume that ‘account’ relates to ‘payment account’ only. To avoid any possible misunderstanding in this matter, we strongly believe that ‘account’ needs to be consistently changed into ‘payment account’. For example, as mentioned in Recital 7 of the draft ITS (page 77 of EBA’s CP) as well as in in paragraph 104 (page 27 of EBA’s DP), the words “General Account Service” need to be amended to “General Payment Account Service”.
• With regard to art. 4 of the proposed Draft EBA ITS on the FID, we recommend to replace the heading ‘account provider’ by ‘payment account provider’ or, in line with the PAD and PSD2, to ‘account servicing payment services provider’.
• Finally, EBA provides in its CP for a FID template in the English language only. We assume that EBA, after taking the received market-feedback regarding its proposed ITS on the FID into account, will offer the FID template in all official languages of EU Member States in its final Draft ITS.
See our answer as provided to question 7.
We agree with EBA that the initial test results, as explained in paragraph 65 to 69 (page 20 and 21 of EBA’s CP), do not show an unambiguous, clear and convincing evidence that the standardised presentation format of the SoF (and FID) actually helps consumers to easy understand this document. Therefore, EBA implemented several changes in the SoF template. It would give us more confidence if the revised SoF template is retested to prove that the changes made actually improve consumers being able to understand the SoF. Furthermore, according to paragraph 63 and 64 (page 20 of EBA’s CP), initial consumer testing took place in only a relatively limited number of Member States. Quantitative research was conducted in eight - and qualitative research in (only) two Member States. We understand EBA’s arguments that there has been relatively limited time and budget available for this consumer testing. However, we believe that the test results would be much more representative when a sufficient number of consumers residing in at least the majority of EU-Member States would have been involved in the testing. We therefore encourage EBA to retest the current SoF template at consumers residing in at least the majority of EU Member States.

We believe that the proposed Draft ITS on the SoF prescribe far too strict lay-out requirements. We are not convinced that this high level of detail and prescription is needed to achieve its objectives (transparency). We are afraid that the proposed ITS on the SoF tends to loose sight of the principle of proportionality in this context. According to art. 5 (4) of the PAD, the EBA has been given a specific mandate to develop draft ITS regarding a standardised presentation format of the SoF and its common symbol. EBA should notably ensure that the SoF and the common symbols are understandable and comparable for consumers. As stressed by EBA in paragraph 116 of the section on ‘background and rationale’ (page 31 of its CP), the SoF should be “clear when read by consumers as well as easy for PSPs to produce”. We believe that a too formalistic and prescriptive approach regarding the format (fonts, letter sizes, line-spacing, colors, portrait-size, etc.) used will turn out to be counterproductive and unnecessarily costly. This applies especially for those Member where payment account-related fees already are relatively low and transparent. It does not seem to meet the aim of having a document “easy to produce for PSPs”. It may lead to additional costs with IT investments and operational adjustments for AS PSPs, which in our view are not proportionate nor necessary. We have a strong preference for adjusting existing templates (‘integration of the SoF in existing documents’) instead of creating new ones. The latter will contribute to an information overload to – and confusion amongst – consumers. Consumers have to be able to see the SoF in an easily readable format. Therefore AS PSPs should have the possibility to adjust its format to adapt it for the channel and type of device used by consumers (PCs, smartphones, tablets, and so on). When taking all the above into account, we strongly recommend EBA to provide for more flexibility for AS PSPs as regard to using the SoF template.

We favour that AS PSPs are allowed to integrate the SoF in, for example, the Annual Financial Statement (AFS), which all Dutch financial institutions (incl. AS PSPs) have to provide to their consumer clients on a yearly basis. The AFS contains relevant fiscal information about all the consumer’s accounts (incl. payment accounts, such as account balance at the beginning - and at the end of the calendar year as well as interest paid and received), investments, loans, mortgages and life insurances. Consumers can use the AFS for their income tax returns. The proposed strict lay-out requirements of the SoF prevent any (in our view, logical) integration of the SoF and the AFS. This would mean that AS PSPs in The Netherlands will have to issue two separate reports, partly containing duplicate information. This will lead to extra costs, possible consumer confusion and surely not to any service improvement for consumers. We therefore believe that the Draft ITS on the SoF should provide for more flexibility for AS PSPs. Moreover, the SoF (and FID) are not the only information documents that customers have to be provided with under EU - and national law (for example under PSD2). Therefore we assume that AS PSPs will be allowed to mention– for example in a footnote in the glossary, FID and SoF – that they are obliged to provide these documents due to European legislation (the PAD), aiming to improve consumers’ transparency and comparability on a pan-EU scale.

We note that the SoF provide an overview of those payment account-related fees which are charged to the PSU by its ASPSP. We emphasize that it will not contain any (possible) fees charged by Third Party Providers (in light of PSD2), such as Account Information Service Providers (AISPs) and Payment Initiation Service Providers (PISPs). For illustration: a payment account holder (here: a consumer) could use a mobile app, as provided by a an AISP, which aggregates transaction data derived from its several payment accounts. When the AISP would charge any fees to the payment account holder for its AIS provided, the SoF as provided by the PSU’s AS PSP will not contain any of these fees paid.

With regard to the SoF template as proposed in the draft ITS and its Annex (page 94 - 96 of EBA’s CP), we recommend the following amendments:
• The SoF template uses the term ‘account’. However, an ‘account’ can be a payment account, but also a savings account, mortage account or trading account. With regard to what ‘account’ means in context of the PAD, we assume that ‘account’ relates to ‘payment account’ only. To avoid any possible misunderstanding in this matter, we strongly believe that ‘account’ needs consistently to be changed into ‘payment account’.
• Regarding the ‘comprehensive cost indicator’, recital 6 of the Draft ITS on the SoF (page 87 of EBA’s CP) states: “In accordance with Recital 19 of Directive 2014/92/EU Member States should be able to require key indicators such as a comprehensive cost indicator to be provided in the statement of fees. The template for the statement of fees should therefore include a separate table, to be used by those payment service providers which are subject to such conditions.”. We notice that the SoF template as proposed in the Annex of the draft ITS (page 94 of EBA’s CP) mentions ‘Key cost indicator’ on its first page. However, the SoF example (page 37 of EBA’s CP) does not mention ‘Key cost indicator’, but seems to call it ‘Comprehensive cost indicator’. Furthermore, the SoF example does not illustrate how this ‘Key cost indicator’ should be interpreted and calculated. Furthermore, Recital 19 of the PAD does not state that Member States should be able to require key indicators such as a comprehensive cost indicator to be provided in the SoF, referring only to the FID: “Member States should be able to require key indicators such as a comprehensive cost indicator summarising the overall annual cost of the payment account for consumers to be provided with the fee information document.”. We believe that implementing any Member State options in a mandatory (SoF) template should be avoided. Therefore, we believe that Recital 6 of the Draft ITS on the SoF (page 87 of EBA’s CP) should be deleted. This also applies for art. 10 (4) of the proposed ITS (on page 89 of EBA’s CP).
• We expect that AS PSPs’ compliancy with the PAD-requirements regarding the SoF (art. 5) will - unfortunately – add very limited value for consumers in The Netherlands and other EU Member States where payment account related fees are already transparent and low. The SoF may lead to consumer confusion, because consumers are not (yet) known with it. Therefore, we assume that AS PSPs will be allowed to mention, for example in a footnote in the SoF, that they are obliged to provide for this document as a result of EU-legislation (the PAD), aiming to improve consumers’ transparency and comparability on a pan-EU scale.
Recital 20 of the PAD establishes that the SoF should be clearly distinguishable from other communications. We consider that the common symbol in the FID template does not clearly represent the document’s purposes. We expect that many consumers will not be aware of the symbol and may not understand why besides the bank’s normal invoices, they also receive the SoF. According to paragraph 119 (page 32 of EBA’s CP) only 52% of the consumers involved in the testing deemed that the symbol would make the SoF distinguishable from other documentation. However, despite these questionable results, EBA decided to not change the SoF symbol as it explains in paragraph 120 (page 32 of EBA’s CP). It would give us more confidence if the revised SoF template and its common symbol is retested to prove that the changes made actually improve consumers being able to understand the SoF. We would suggest EBA to have the symbol constituted of the acronyms of the FID with EU acronyms.

Furthermore, according to paragraph 63 and 64 (page 20 of EBA’s CP), initial consumer testing took place in only a relatively limited number of Member States. Quantitative research was conducted in eight - and qualitative research in (only) two Member States. We understand EBA’s arguments that there has been relatively limited time and budget available for this consumer testing. However, we believe that the test results would be much more representative when a sufficient number of consumers residing in at least the majority of EU-Member States would have been involved in the testing. We therefore encourage EBA to retest the current SoF template, including its symbol, at consumers residing in at least the majority of EU Member States.
We understand EBA’s goals - enabling consumers to understand the fees paid and to assess the need to either modify their consumption patterns or to move to another provider - by imposing strict requirements in both content and lay-out of the SoF template and bring its structure, where possible, in line with that of the FID template. We however have serious doubts whether the proposed instructions for the completion of the SoF template contained in the draft ITS is suited to lead to improvements on this matter in all circumstances. Our concerns relate to the following:
• Consumers have to be able to see the SoF in an easily readable format. Therefore, we believe that AS PSPs should have the possibility to adjust its format to adapt it for the channel and type of device used by consumers (PCs, smartphones, tablets, and so on). The ITS should provide for a sufficiently flexible SoF format, in order to remain usable for the channels used by AS PSP to provide the SoFs to their consumer clients.
• We note that the services mentioned in the example-SoF (page 38 of EBA’s CP) do not always match the prescribed terms as mentioned in the Annex of the Draft RTS on Union standardised terminology. For example ‘debit card’, which used in the box ‘Services’ under the header ‘General account services’ on the first page of the SoF example (page 38 of EBA’s CP), versus ‘Providing a debit card’ (where we note that ‘Providing a debit card’ refers to a single event, and ‘debit card’ could refer to a continuous usage of a debit card) in the Annex of the Draft RTS. We understand from the example-SoF that it will be possible that in the SoF only part of a term - as described in the (Draft) RTS – is used. However, we encourage EBA to provide unambiguous clearance on this matter in their final Draft ITS of the SoF.
• We also note that the costs as mentioned in the ‘Total’-column in the SoF’s table ‘Detailed statement of fees paid on the account’ in the example-SoF (page 38 an 39 of EBA’s CP) do not sum to the € 252,- as mentioned in the row ‘Total fees paid (total package of services fees and total fees paid)’ on the first page of the example-SoF (page 37 of EBA’s CP). What could explain this difference is that (maybe?) only the services as mentioned on the national list of most representative services have to be specified in the SoF’s table ‘Detailed statement of fees paid on the account’. Nevertheless, we strongly urge EBA to provide for clarity in this matter in its final Draft ITS of the SoF.
• For reasons of completeness, we suggest to amend recital 8 of the draft RTS (page 87 of EBA’s CP) with the text placed between brackets: “This Regulation is based on the draft implementing technical standards submitted by the European Banking Authority (EBA) to the Commission.” into “This Regulation is based on the draft implementing technical standards [on the standardised presentation format of the statement of fees and its common symbol, under Article 5(4) of Directive 2014/92/EU [Payment Accounts Directive]] submitted by the European Banking Authority (EBA) to the Commission.”
• The draft ITS often use the term ‘account’. However, an ‘account’ can be a payment account, but also a savings account, mortage account or trading account. With regard to what ‘account’ means in context of the PAD, we assume that ‘account’ relates to ‘payment account’ only. To avoid any possible misunderstanding in this matter, we strongly believe that ‘account’ needs to be consistently changed into ‘payment account’. For example, as mentioned the words “General Account Service” as mentioned several times in art. 11 and 12 of the draft ITS (page 89 and 90 of EBA’s CP) would, in our view, need to be amended to “General Payment Account Service”.
• We recommend, regarding art. 4 (2) of the Draft ITS (page 88 of EBA’s CP), to delete the words ‘fax number’. In our view, the fax in a quite outdated communication instrument, of which the use is minimized during the last years. This also applies to the communication via fax machine between consumers and AS PSPs.
• The proposed Draft ITS on the FID do not provide guidance on how AS PSPs should integrate possible existing tiered pricing models, volume discounts, rebates, , currency conversion rates (for example when withdrawing cash at ATMs outside the Eurozone), different pricing models used for specific customer segments, et cetera, with regard to the fees and interest rates of their payment account-related offering in the SoF. We recommend EBA to provide for more guidance on this matter in its final Draft ITS of the SoF.
• Paragraph 124 (on page 33 of EBA’s CP) mentions the introductory part of the SoF template also specifies “(…) which SoF is being provided (number 1, 2 etc.).”. Art. 7 of the draft ITS (page 89 of EBA’s CP) states: “Payment service providers shall indicate in the row ‘Statement of fees’ the number of statement of fees provided, which shall be displayed in numeral character, left aligned.” We are not sure what is exactly meant here. Does it mean that a certain payment account could have multiple SoFs covering for the same period? Or does it mean that each successive SoF should have a number (for example number 1 for the SoF of 2018, number 2 for the SoF of 2019, etc.)? In our view, mentioning only an number is of little value for consumers. The attention should focus rather on the period the statement is referring to. We therefore suggest the deletion of this line.
• With regard to art. 4 of the proposed Draft EBA ITS on the SoF (page 88 of EBA’s CP), we recommend to replace the heading ‘account provider’ by ‘payment account provider’ or, in line with the PAD and PSD2, to ‘account servicing payment services provider’.
• Recital 6 and art. 10 (4) of the draft ITS (page 87 and 89 of EBA’s CP) refer to a ‘comprehensive cost indicator’. Art. 10 (4) of the Draft ITS mentions that PSPs “shall display the comprehensive cost indicator summarising the overall annual cost of the payment account in a separate table, where required by national provisions. The table shall be deleted, if national provisions do not require payment service providers to display the comprehensive cost indicator.”. As we have mentioned earlier, we are not sure what ‘Comprehensive cost indicator’ - or ‘Key cost indicator’ as the SoF template in the Annex of the draft ITS (page 94 of EBA’s CP) mentions instead - exactly means nor how it needs to be calculated and displayed in the SoF. We therefore recommend EBA to provide more guidance on this in its final Draft ITS, or completely delete this requirement.
• We do not understand what is meant with art. 11 (4) of the proposed Draft ITS of the SoF (page 90 of EBA’s CP), especially with the second part: “(…), or if the package of services is offered with the account this package is charged as part of the fee for any general account services.”. We recommend EBA to rephrase this text in order to provide for more clarity on this matter in its final Draft ITS of the SoF. We also recommend EBA to clarify what is exactly meant in art. 12 (9). We see a need for more guidance for AS PSPs on how to deal with payment account packages in filling-in SoFs.
• Art. 12 (8) of the Draft ITS of the SoF (page 91 of EBA’s CP) states: “Where the fee has changed during the relevant period, payment service providers shall list the fees applied during each period, by adding new lines to the ‘Unit fee’ column.” We assume that an AS PSP will in that case be required to specify which fee relates to which period. We recommend EBA to clearly mention this in art. 12 (8).
• Paragraph 141 (page 35 of EBA’s CP) mentions: “The draft ITS propose that the PSP indicate the interest rate expressed as a percentage applied on the annual basis and if the rate changed during the relevant period, the provider must list the interest rates that applied during each period. The PSP must also indicate the resultant total amount of interest paid or earned by the payment account holder, in bold.”. These requirements are described in art. 13 (2 and 3) of the Draft RTS (page 92 of EBA’s CP). However, in the SoF example, in the box ‘Detail of interest paid on the account’ (page 39 of EBA’s CP), two interest rates are displayed: 10% and 12%. It is however not mentioned which periods these percentages cover for. We are not sure whether the example-SoF example mistakenly lacks this information (as required by art. 13 (2 and 3) of the draft ITS ). We assume that an AS PSPs will in that case be required to specify which interest rate relates to which period. We recommend EBA to clearly mention this in art. 13 (2) in its final Draft ITS. The same would apply for interest earned (art. 14 (3 and 4)).
• We further recommend EBA to specify in art. 13 and 14 of its proposed Draft ITS (page 91 an 92 of EBA’s CP) whether the interest rate – which AS PSPs are required to mention in their SoFs – relate to the nominal - or effective interest rate (or both).
• Regarding art. 13(3) of the proposed ITS on the SoF, we assume that if applicable, AS PSPs need to indicate whether the paid interest percentage(s) cover for overdraft and/ or overrunning. This because interest rates charged for overdraft and overrunning often differ from each other.
• Art. 13 (4) of the proposed draft ITS on the SoF (page 92 of EBA’s CP) states: “Where a particular account does not pay the interest because no interest is applicable to the account, payment service providers shall indicate it by using the following wordings ‘interest not applicable’, in lower case, left aligned, in bold, in row ‘Total interest paid’.”. Art. 14 (5) of the draft ITS (page 92 of EBA’s CP) states: “Where a particular account does not pay the interest because no interest is applicable to the account, payment service providers shall indicate it by using the following wordings ‘interest not applicable’, in lower case, left aligned, in the column ‘Interest’.”. We wonder why EBA chooses for a different way of specifying ‘interest not applicable’ for interest paid and earned on the payment account the SoF template. Therefore, we recommend EBA to make the different approaches of art. 13 (4) and 14 (5) consistent with each other. Furthermore, we believe that these lay-out requirements are set (far) too strict.
• Art. 13 (5) the proposed draft ITS of the SoF (page 92 of EBA’s CP) relates to ‘detail interest paid on the account’. However, it does not refer to interest paid on the payment account, but rather to interest earned on the payment account. Therefore, art. 13 (5) should be redrafted.
• We note that for some services, it can be quite arbitrary whether they are actually payment account-related or not. For example, the use of identification and authentication methods for internet banking, which in some EU-Member States can also be used for eID-services (such as iDIN in the Netherlands). We assume that these services are – in principle – out of scope of the SoF. We recommend EBA to provide for clarity on this matter in its final Draft ITS of the SoF.
• Finally, EBA provides in its CP for a SoF template in the English language only. We assume that EBA, after taking the received market-feedback regarding its proposed ITS on the SoF into account, will offer the SoF template in all official languages of EU Member States in its final Draft ITS.
See our answer as provided to question 11.
[Other "]"
Betaalvereniging Nederland (Dutch Payments Association) organises the collective – non competitive – tasks in the national payment system for its
members. Our members are providers of payment services: banks, payment institutions and electronic money institutions. The Dutch Payments
Association’s responsibilities lie in the areas of infrastructure, standards and shared product features. We seek to ensure a socially efficient, safe and
reliable payment system, with room for innovation.
[Other"]"
See above.
Marc van der Maarel MSc
B