Do you think you are Russian? Born in the USSR and think that you are Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian? No. This is not true.

You are actually Russian, Ukrainian or Belarusian. But you think you are a Jew.

Game? Wrong word. The correct word is "imprinting".

The newborn associates himself with those facial features that he observes immediately after birth. This natural mechanism is characteristic of most living creatures with vision.

For the first few days, newborns in the USSR saw their mother for a minimum of feeding time, and most of the time they saw the faces of the maternity hospital staff. By a strange coincidence, they were (and still are) mostly Jewish. The reception is wild in its essence and effectiveness.

All your childhood you wondered why you live surrounded by non-native people. Rare Jews on your way could do anything with you, because you were drawn to them, and others were repelled. And even now they can.

You cannot fix this - imprinting is one-time and for life. It is difficult to understand this, the instinct took shape when you were still very far from the ability to formulate. Since that moment, no words or details have survived. Only facial features remained in the depths of my memory. Those traits that you consider to be your own.

System and Observer

Let's define a system as an object, the existence of which is beyond doubt.

An observer of a system is an object that is not part of the system he observes, that is, it determines its existence, including through factors independent of the system.

From the point of view of the system, the observer is a source of chaos - both control actions and the consequences of observational measurements that do not have a causal relationship with the system.

An internal observer is a potentially achievable object for the system in relation to which inversion of observation and control channels is possible.

An external observer is even a potentially unreachable object for the system, located beyond the system's event horizon (spatial and temporal).

Hypothesis No. 1. All-seeing eye

Let's assume that our universe is a system and it has an external observer. Then observational measurements can occur, for example, with the help of "gravitational radiation" penetrating the universe from all sides from the outside. The capture cross-section of "gravitational radiation" is proportional to the mass of the object, and the projection of the "shadow" from this capture onto another object is perceived as an attractive force. It will be proportional to the product of the masses of objects and inversely proportional to the distance between them, which determines the density of the "shadow".

The capture of "gravitational radiation" by an object increases its chaos and is perceived by us as the passage of time. An object that is opaque for "gravitational radiation", the capture cross section of which is larger than the geometric size, looks like a black hole inside the universe.

Hypothesis No. 2. Inner Observer

It is possible that our universe is observing itself. For example, with the help of pairs of quantum entangled particles spaced apart in space as standards. Then the space between them is saturated with the probability of the existence of the process that generated these particles, reaching the maximum density at the intersection of the trajectories of these particles. The existence of these particles also means that there is no sufficiently large capture cross section on the trajectories of objects to absorb these particles. The rest of the assumptions remain the same as for the first hypothesis, except:

Time flow

Outside observation of an object approaching the event horizon of a black hole, if the “external observer” is the determining factor of time in the universe, will slow down exactly twice - the black hole's shadow will block exactly half of the possible trajectories of “gravitational radiation”. If the “inner observer” is the determining factor, then the shadow will block the entire trajectory of interaction and the flow of time for an object falling into a black hole will completely stop for a view from the side.

Also, the possibility of combining these hypotheses in one proportion or another is not excluded.

When analyzing the submitted documents, it was established that the individual conditions of the contract with a specific consumer on the provision of targeted consumer credit for the purchase of a motor vehicle included conditions that infringe on the rights of the consumer. The Bank's agreement with the consumer includes the following in the individual terms of the agreement and the total amount of the loan: the amount of the loan to pay the insurance premium under the GEP-insurance agreement concluded between the borrower and the insurance company NORD INSURANCE LLC (insurance premium - 5,100 rubles), the amount of the loan to pay for the cost of the Roadside Assistance service rendered to the borrower by LLC NORD INSURANCE (insurance premium - 8,900 rubles), the amount of the loan to pay the insurance premium under the insurance contract “Protected against loss of valuable things” concluded between the borrower and the insurance by the company NORD INSHUANCE LLC (insurance premium - 2,500 rubles). According to the application for a consumer loan for a motor vehicle, it follows that the consumer did not want to be insured for the above services precisely in the insurance company specified in the standard form of the contract.

Since the Bank in the loan agreement concluded with a specific consumer, insurance premiums under insurance contracts are included in the total loan amount, that is, paid for using borrowed funds, such insurance was caused by the need to conclude a loan agreement, and not by the consumer's need for additional insurance services. The inclusion of conditions in the loan agreement, which are actually conditions for obtaining a loan, indicates an abuse of the freedom of the contract.

On the fact of these violations, Cetelem Bank LLC was brought to administrative responsibility under Part 2 of Article 14.8 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation) in the form of an administrative fine in the amount of 20,000 rubles.

The bank, disagreeing with the ruling, appealed to the Arbitration Court of the city of Moscow with a statement challenging it.

The Moscow Arbitration Court (case No.A40-103347 / 16) refused to satisfy the stated requirements, motivating its findings by the fact that the administrative body had proved the event and the corpus delicti, the responsibility for the commission of which is stipulated in Part 2 of Article 14.8 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, as well as compliance with the procedure and deadlines bringing to administrative responsibility.

The Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal, to which the Bank filed an appeal, upheld the decision of the Moscow Arbitration Court, and the Bank's appeal was not satisfied.

The decision of the Moscow Arbitration Court and the Resolution of the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal entered into force.

NIZHNYGOROD REGIONAL COURT

APPEAL DEFINITION

The Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Nizhny Novgorod Regional Court composed of:

presiding judge Kondakova T.A.,

judges Kochetkova M.The. and Kulaeva E.V.,

when keeping the minutes of the court session by the secretary S.V. Ignatiev,

considered in open court the appeal Baykova Oh.A.

against the decision of the Sovetskiy District Court of the city of Nizhny Novgorod dated December 11, 2014 in the case on the claim of O.A. Baykova. to Cetelem Bank LLC on recognizing the terms of the agreement as invalid, recognizing the debt as canceled, the obligation terminated, recovering compensation for moral damage, court costs, recognizing the accrual of the fine as invalid,

after hearing the report of the judge of the Nizhny Novgorod Regional Court Kochetkova M.The., explanations of the representative Baykova O.A. by proxy Dovbush M.S., judicial board

INSTALLED:

Baikova O.A. applied to the court with these requirements to Cetelem Bank LLC, indicating,<…>year entered into an agreement with the defendant on the provision of targeted consumer credit for the purchase of a vehicle No.<…>... Clause 7.12 of this agreement stipulates that the client agrees that all questions, disagreements or claims arising from the agreement with the bank and related to the collection of debts by the bank under the agreement are subject to consideration in court at the location of the bank. The plaintiff believes that the specified term of the contract is contrary to the law - clause 2 of article 17, clause 1 of article 16 of the Law of the Russian Federation of 07.02.1992 No. 2300-1 "On protection of consumer rights", since the jurisdiction of disputes arising from contracts, one of the parties which the consumer is established by law and cannot be changed by agreement of the parties. Thus, the provisions of clause 7.12 of the loan agreement are null and void and on the basis of Art. 168 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation shall be invalidated. Besides,<…> <…>year, on the need to provide information and documents, as well as on changing the provisions of clause 7.12 of the agreement regarding the jurisdiction of the dispute under this agreement.<…>year this notification was received by the bank. However, the respondent did not provide a response to this notification.<…>year, the plaintiff re-sent the said notification. Having received no response to the repeated notification, the plaintiff<…>year transferred to the bank on account of early fulfillment of the obligation to repay the loan under the agreement dated<…>year cash in the amount of<…>... Considering these actions of the defendant unlawful, the plaintiff, taking into account the changed requirements, asked the court to recognize the conditions of clause 7.12 of the agreement on the provision of targeted consumer credit for the purchase of a vehicle No.<…>from<…>year invalid (null and void); recognize the debt to Cetelem Bank LLC as repaid under an agreement on the provision of a targeted consumer loan for the purchase of a car from<…>year, and obligations terminated, recognize the accrual of a fine in the amount of<…>rubles for failure to submit the vehicle title for temporary storage invalid; recover from Cetelem Bank LLC compensation for moral damage in the amount of<…>rubles, legal costs in the amount of<…>rubles.

In the court of first instance the plaintiff Baykova Oh.A. and her representative by proxy Dovbush M.S. did not appear, they were notified of the time and place of the hearing.

The representative of the defendant LLC "Setelem Bank" by proxy Kurmaev D.The. he did not admit the claim.

By the decision of the Sovetskiy District Court of Nizhny Novgorod dated December 11, 2014, the claims of O.A. Baykova partially satisfied. The conditions of clause 7.12 of the agreement on the provision of targeted consumer credit for the purchase of a car No.<…>from<…>of the year.

Compensation for moral damage in the amount of<…>rubles, a fine of<…> <…>rubles. A state fee in the amount of<…>rubles. The rest of the claims Baykova Oh.A. denied.

In the appeal Baykova Oh.A. the question was raised of the cancellation of the court's decision in the part in which it was denied the satisfaction of claims for recognition of the repaid debt to the bank, as adopted in violation of the norms of substantive and procedural law.

In objections to the appeal, Setelem Bank LLC asks to leave the court decision unchanged, and the appeal - not satisfied.

The legality of the decision of the court of first instance was verified by the judicial collegium for civil cases of the Nizhny Novgorod Regional Court in the manner prescribed by Chapter 39 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.

By virtue of part 1 of Article 327.1 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the court of appeal considers the case within the limits of the arguments set out in the appeal.

Having checked the materials of the case, having discussed the arguments of the appeal, objections to the complaint, having heard the explanations of the persons who appeared in the case, the judicial board finds no grounds for canceling the court decision, since it was decided in accordance with the requirements of the law and the circumstances established in the case.

<…>years between Baikova O.A. and Cetelem Bank LLC entered into an agreement on the provision of a targeted consumer loan for the purchase of a vehicle No.<…>.

Clause 7.12 of this agreement stipulates that the client agrees that all questions, disagreements or claims arising from the agreement with the bank and related to the collection of debts by the bank under the agreement are subject to consideration in court at the location of the bank.

In accordance with Part 7 of Art. 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, claims for the protection of consumer rights can also be filed in court at the place of residence or place of stay of the plaintiff, or at the place of conclusion or place of execution of the contract.

In accordance with paragraph 2 of Art. 17 of the Law of the Russian Federation of February 7, 1992 No. 2300-1 "On Protection of Consumer Rights", claims for the protection of consumer rights can be brought to court at the location of the organization, the place of residence or stay of the plaintiff, the place of conclusion or execution of the contract. In this case, the choice between several courts, which have jurisdiction over the case, belongs to the plaintiff.

Thus, the legislator, in order to protect the rights of consumers, as an economically weak party in the agreement, introduced additional mechanisms of legal protection, including in the issue of determining the jurisdiction of civil cases with their participation.

The inclusion by the bank in the loan agreement of a provision on the jurisdiction of the dispute to a specific court (in particular, at the location of the bank) infringes on the consumer's rights established by law.

According to Part 1 of Art. 16 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On Protection of Consumer Rights", the terms of the contract that infringe on consumer rights in comparison with the rules established by laws or other legal acts of the Russian Federation in the field of consumer protection are invalidated.

Consequently, clause 7.12 of the loan agreement concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant does not comply with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation and the Law "On Protection of Consumer Rights", and therefore, by virtue of Art. 168 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation is void.

Resolving the stated claims, the court of first instance, having assessed the circumstances established in the case in relation to the above provisions of the law, made the correct conclusion that the condition of the loan agreement clause 7.12 of the contested loan agreement is invalid by virtue of the law.

The appeal does not contain any arguments challenging the above findings of the court of first instance.

It follows from the materials of the case that<…>year by registered mail with notification and a list of investments by the plaintiff, a notice was sent to the defendant of the early repayment of the loan under the agreement from<…>years, on the need to provide information and documents, as well as on changing the provisions of clause 7.12 of the agreement regarding the jurisdiction of the dispute under this agreement (ld 21-23).

<…>this notice was received by the defendant.

However, the respondent did not provide a response to this notification.

<…>year, the plaintiff re-sent the specified notification to the bank.

Having received no response to the repeated notification, the plaintiff<…>year transferred to the bank on account of early fulfillment of the obligation to repay the loan in the amount of<…>.

It was found that by the date of the next monthly payment (<…>year) the defendant did not enroll the entire amount transferred by the plaintiff in the amount of<…>on account of the early fulfillment of the obligation to repay the loan under the agreement from<…>of the year.

This transfer was not made by the bank due to insufficient funds, since<…>year, the bank charged the plaintiff with a fine for not providing the vehicle title in the amount of<…>rubles.

<…>years, the defendant canceled the payment of the fine for not providing the vehicle title in the amount of<…>rubles (l.d. 185), and<…>year on account of early execution Baikova O.A. obligations under the contract credited the deposited funds to her account.

Thus, at the time of the decision by the court, the credit agreement was fulfilled by the parties in full, the obligations of the parties were terminated.

The court correctly indicated that, since at the time of the decision the said loan agreement was terminated by its execution, the recognition of this loan agreement as fulfilled (terminated) on a certain date will not in itself entail any consequences and will not directly lead to the restoration of the plaintiff's rights.

Taking into account the grounds for the stated requirements and the subject of the dispute under consideration, the arguments of the appeal on the illegal use of funds and the accrual of interest for the period from<…>years to<…>years, do not entail the cancellation of the decision of the court of first instance, as unfounded.

Other arguments of the appeal, challenging the conclusions of the court on the merits of the dispute considered, also cannot affect the content of the decision made by the court, the correctness of the court's determination of the rights and obligations of the parties within the framework of the disputed legal relationship, and do not indicate the existence of those provided for by Art. 330 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation of grounds for canceling a court decision.

The arguments disputing the conclusions of the court regarding the satisfaction of the claims Baykova Oh.A. on the recovery in her favor of compensation for non-pecuniary damage and a fine, and requirements for the cancellation of the decision in this part of the appeal does not contain.

Violations of the norms of substantive and procedural law, which led or could lead to an incorrect resolution of this case (including those referred to in the appeal), were not allowed by the court.

Meanwhile, in the operative part of the decision it is not specified that the recovery from LLC Setelem Bank of compensation for moral damage, a fine and costs of paying for the services of a representative is made in favor of O. Baykova.

Within the meaning of the provisions of clause 6 of Article 330 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, this circumstance cannot be a basis for changing the decision. The court's decision in this part is subject to clarification.

Based on the foregoing, guided by Articles 328, 329, 330 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Nizhny Novgorod Regional Court

DEFINED:

the decision of the Sovetskiy District Court of N.N. Novgorod of December 11, 2014 to leave unchanged, the appeal of Baykova O.A. - without satisfaction.

Clarify the operative part of the decision of the Sovetskiy District Court of the city of Nizhny Novgorod dated December 11, 2014 instead of the words “To collect compensation for moral damage from Setelem Bank LLC in the amount of<…>rubles, a fine of<…>rubles, the cost of paying for the services of a representative in the amount of<…>rubles "indicate" Collect from LLC "Setelem Bank" in favor of O.A. Baykova. compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the amount<…>rubles, a fine of<…>rubles, the cost of paying for the services of a representative in the amount of<…>rubles ".

Presiding judge.

Legal advice:

1. I took a car loan at Setelem Bank, wrote a statement about the refusal of life insurance in Sberbank on March 24. How do I know if my insurance has been canceled?

1.1. Easy: call the Security Council and ask.
Good luck.

Did the answer help you? Not really

1.2. You will have to transfer insurance funds within 10 days, or set them off as a loan, if this is provided for by the insurance rules.

Did the answer help you? Not really

2. Setelem bank car loan vacations job loss.

2.1. Write an application to the bank for debt restructuring / deferred payment, attach documents confirming your loss of work.

Did the answer help you? Not really

3. What is the clause in the agreement 1.3 amount to pay for other consumer needs? Bank Cetelem.

3.1. Not quite clear. It is necessary to look at the contract to answer your question.
Sincerely.

Did the answer help you? Not really

4. We are going to apply for a car loan at a chain bank, are we obliged to leave the PTS at the bank?

4.1. It is necessary to find out from the bank. The conditions for issuing a loan are different for everyone.

Did the answer help you? Not really

5. It is possible to return insurance in case of early repayment of a car loan at Setelem Bank.

5.1. Is it possible to demand the return of part of the insurance, and in some cases the full amount, is the insurance on hand now?

Did the answer help you? Not really

6. How to maintain a car credit. The bank filed a lawsuit. Setelem.

6.1. Just negotiate with the bank, look for money and repay the loan.
Otherwise, a penalty will be imposed on the car by the bailiffs.

Did the answer help you? Not really

6.2. Or challenge the pledge agreement if it has been drawn up with violations. There are still options, but again, it all depends on the terms of the contract. In some cases, the car is sold and the buyer is subsequently deemed to be in good faith. For a more detailed study of the situation, you can apply for a personal consultation at the following contacts.

Respectfully yours, a lawyer in Volgograd - Stepanov Vadim Igorevich.

Did the answer help you? Not really

7. Setelem Bank imposed a fine for untimely prolongation of CASCO. How to dispute?

7.1. And what do you have in the terms of the contract? I understand that this is a car loan? Look pzhsta. After all, an agreement is when 2 parties agree on certain conditions and by putting their signatures, they confirm that they have come to an agreement on all points and confirm their intentions to fulfill the conditions set forth in the agreement.
If on your part there really was a violation of the essential terms of the contract, then the imposition of a fine (if such is also provided for by the contract) is quite a place to be.

Did the answer help you? Not really

7.2. If this fine is provided for by your loan agreement, then it is useless to dispute this fact. You yourself agreed with this condition when signing the contract. All the best!

Did the answer help you? Not really

8. Auto credit network bank. Delays 4 months threaten with the court.

8.1. The bank has the right to judicially collect the existing debt + fines, penalties, penalties, etc. It is more profitable for you to negotiate with the bank and find a way out of the situation, otherwise court costs will be added to the debt. If the car is pledged by the bank, it is possible that the bank will require foreclosure on the pledged property.

Did the answer help you? Not really

9. Can I defer my monthly car loan payment at a network bank?

9.1. Nikolay!
If you do this, then, obviously, the sanctions stipulated by the loan agreement (penalties, fines) will be applied.

Did the answer help you? Not really

10. Cetelem Bank refuses to pay the balance of the insurance in case of early repayment of the loan.

10.1. If the loan was repaid ahead of schedule, then you can apply for a refund of part of the funds, if such a condition is provided for in the contract.

Did the answer help you? Not really

11. How to find out if a car loan was approved for me in a chain bank.

11.1. How to find out if a car loan was approved for me at a chain bank.

How to find out if a car loan was approved for me at a chain bank.
Should call, if they do not call, then they refused. Go and pick up the documents if you handed over.

Did the answer help you? Not really

12. How to send a policy with documents on Casco payment to the bank by the chain operator?

12.1. You can send it by mail with a list of attachments and return receipt.
But it is better to deposit directly to the bank.

Did the answer help you? Not really

12.2. The bank's website contains all the contact information, as well as a multichannel phone number for communication with the operator, so please specify.

Did the answer help you? Not really

13. I am on maternity leave to care for a child up to three years old. In October last year, I took out a loan due to very urgent circumstances on not favorable terms. Now, during the coronavirus epidemic, my husband has no income, besides, we have 2 small children. How can I correctly arrange a credit vacation for a maximum period at Setelem Bank so that there is no refusal?

13.1. To get a credit vacation, you must document that your spouse's income has decreased by 30% or more, this can be confirmed by a certificate of closing an individual entrepreneur or a certificate from the place of work. If the spouse did not work officially, then it will not work to arrange a credit vacation, it will only be possible to refinance the loan, at the discretion of the bank.

Did the answer help you? Not really

Consultation on your question

calls from landlines and mobiles are free throughout Russia

14. Soon there will be a month on the delay of a car loan in a network bank, I want to make 2 payments at once in 10 days. How long does it take for the bank to sue, and is the car always taken away?

14.1. Usually, it takes from a couple of months to a year from delay to trial.
The car will be foreclosed even later, until the court's decision comes into force, while the bailiffs will transfer the case. So you still have time to fix it.

Did the answer help you? Not really

14.2. The bank will not immediately file a lawsuit, first you will have a pre-trial settlement, in the form of telephone conversations and writing letters of claim.
Sincerely! Please post your feedback for my consultation!

Did the answer help you? Not really

14.3. This is at the discretion of the bank. Usually, a claim is sent to the debtor before going to court.

Did the answer help you? Not really

14.4. Not always, the bank sues starting from 3 months.

Did the answer help you? Not really

15. I took out a car loan at Setelem Bank, I wanted to know if I could refuse life insurance, since 14 days have not passed since the moment of buying the car, what should be done for this?

15.1. Christina, you need to write an application for termination of the insurance contract to the Insurance Company with which you have entered into a contract. But in such cases, banks often raise the interest rate on the loan.

Did the answer help you? Not really

15.2. Taking into account the norms of the current legislation, namely, clause 1 of the Ordinance of the Bank of Russia of November 20, 2015 N 3854-U "On minimum (standard) requirements for the conditions and procedure for the implementation of certain types of voluntary insurance" - when carrying out voluntary insurance, the policyholder (person who takes a loan and, accordingly, enters into an insurance contract) has the right to withdraw from the insurance contract and demand a full refund of funds for insurance within 14 days from the date of the conclusion of the insurance contract or from the moment the bank or the insurance organization of the borrower enters the register of insured persons. A period of 14 days is called a cooling period. In this case, it is necessary to apply in writing with a request to the credit and insurance organization, indicating that the insurance contract has been terminated and, accordingly, the insurance premium is subject to refund. In a situation where the borrower's claims are not satisfied before the court order, it is necessary to claim in court, by filing a statement of claim with the court at the place of official registration of the borrower and the territorial jurisdiction of the judicial authority.

Did the answer help you? Not really

16. If I pay, according to the writ of execution to the bailiffs, and the bank sends SMS in the form "Cetelem Bank" LLC: During the verification of the information under your agreement, inconsistencies were revealed. The provision of fictitious personal data is a violation of the law. Pay the overdue debt today and call back Bank 88005005509 "what to do?

16.1. If you did not provide inaccurate information, then you do not need to call anywhere.

Did the answer help you? Not really

17. Bank Cetelem filed a lawsuit for the full cost of the loan, half was paid, the court is at the place of registration, I am in another city, is it possible to submit an objection by e-mail so that the court decision does not come into force, and how can this be done how to reduce the amount? Thanks.

17.1. You can file an objection to the claim.

If you send an objection by e-mail, it must be duplicated by sending the document by Russian Post by registered mail. It is necessary.

The amount can be reduced, but for this you need to familiarize yourself with the full text of the statement of claim and the calculations attached to it.

I can draw up an objection for you regarding the filed claim with all due calculations, completely ready to be sent to court. If you need my help, write to the email address that is attached to my answer.

Did the answer help you? Not really

18. Took a credit card for 10 thousand. Bank network. I threw it out 6 years later. they called and said that the amount of 180 thousand. Interest .. must be paid. How have they not filed a lawsuit in 6 years if they have a reason? The card was issued by mail.

18.1. The creditor's right to decide when to go to court. The expiration of the limitation period does not deprive the creditor of the right to go to court.

Did the answer help you? Not really

18.2. The limitation period does not automatically apply. It can be applied only by the court, and only at the request of the parties. The bank transferred the money to your card, and what you did with it is your business. After discarding the card. The counter continued to work.

Did the answer help you? Not really

19. I have my last installment on a car loan this month at Cetelem Bank. What are my next steps, considering that the car dealership where the loan agreement was drawn up and the bank are in different cities?

19.1. Make the last installment. The next day after the write-off, pick up the original TCP and receive a certificate of closing the loan. Actually, that's all.

Did the answer help you? Not really

20. Car loan with a chain bank. The agreement states that it is at least one year to issue a comprehensive insurance policy. Is it possible not to apply for the second year.

20.1. If the contract does not provide for the mandatory registration of CASCO insurance, then it is not necessary. However, if you refuse Casco insurance, you personally assume full responsibility to the bank, if an accident occurs and the car loses its market value, and the compulsory OSAGO insurance does not cover the damage caused, or you will be the culprit of the accident, all the costs of restoring the car fall on owner. At the same time, the loan before the bank will not go anywhere.

Did the answer help you? Not really

21. Paid in court with a Setelem pension to the bank for 2 years for 5 thousand. Now I have finished, now they expose me to a penalty of 185 thousand. The loan itself was 200, you can somehow get out of everything and how to be Help?

21.1. You do not need to pay a penalty voluntarily. Let the bank go to court, and you can declare in court a reduction in the amount of the penalty in accordance with Art. 333 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.

Did the answer help you? Not really

21.2. in this case, you do not have to pay anything. If the bank goes to court, you should apply with a response to reduce the amount of the penalty, etc.

Did the answer help you? Not really

22. I took a car loan from Setelem Bank, except for the amount of 707,450 rubles. , which was needed to buy a car, was also added the amount to pay for other consumer needs-39844. The loan was repaid in full within 6 months. Can I return part of the amount for other consumer needs, since I no longer need them?

22.1. You can warn the lender about the early repayment of the loan at least one month in advance.

Did the answer help you? Not really

22.2. Need to look, what are these needs? As a rule, insurance and services are imposed with a car loan, where exactly did this money go?

Did the answer help you? Not really

23. I pay a car loan to Setelem Bank, I delayed the purchase of CASCO, (but bought) I was fined 10,000 rubles. (this is stipulated in the contract and they were also hurt by the fact that I bought the insurance not from their representative) the bottom line is, can the Bank withdraw the amount of the fine from the amount I contributed on the principal debt that I pay on a monthly basis?

23.1. Read the agreement, most likely there is such a sequence of repayment and it costs, first legal costs, then forfeits, then interest, then the principal debt. Look for the order of repayment in the contract.

Did the answer help you? Not really

24. Received SMS from Creditexpr Debt "Cetelem Bank" LLC, 88OO5OO55O9 to LLC KIF, call back 88002220483, although I am not familiar with this bank at all.

24.1. We are not dealing with these issues.

Did the answer help you? Not really

24.2. These are collectors. Ignore it, otherwise they can write off a round amount from the phone and the bank account linked to it.

Did the answer help you? Not really

25. Took out a loan in a chain in 2014. I could not pay. 28.11.2018
. found out that the debt has been sold to collectors since 2015. the bank itself is no longer there. Is it possible to completely save the debt?

25.1. If 3 years have not passed since the last loan payment (Article 196 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), then you will not be able to write off the debts.

Did the answer help you? Not really

А44-1939 / 2014

FOURTEENTH ARBITRATION
COURT OF APPEAL
st. Batyushkova, 12, Vologda, 160001
http: // site

P O S T A N O V L E N I E

The operative part of the resolution was announced on December 25, 2014 .
The decree was issued in full on January 12, 2015.

The fourteenth Arbitration Court of Appeal composed of the presiding judge Murakhina N.V., judges Osokina N.N. and Pestereva O.Yu.
when keeping the minutes by the secretary of the court session Mazaletskaya O.O.,
Having considered in open court the appeal of the Setelem Bank limited liability company against the decision of the Arbitration Court of the Novgorod Region dated October 09, 2014 in case No. A44-1939 / 2014 (judge I.G. Larina),

u st and about in and l:

Limited Liability Company Setelem Bank (TIN 6452010742, OGRN 1027739664260; location: 125040, Moscow, Pravdy Street, 26; hereinafter referred to as the bank, LLC Setelem Bank) applied to the Arbitration Court of the Novgorod Region with an application to the Office of the Federal services for supervision in the field of consumer rights protection and human well-being in the Novgorod region (TIN 5321101433, OGRN 1055300903833; location: 173015, Veliky Novgorod, German street, house 14; hereinafter referred to as the department) on recognition of illegal and cancellation of the order to eliminate the identified violations from 03/19/2014 No. 49 / ZPP.
By the decision of the Arbitration Court of the Novgorod Region dated October 09, 2014 in case No. А44-1939 / 2014, the stated requirements were denied.
The bank did not agree with the judicial act and filed an appeal, in which it asks the court's decision to be canceled. In support of the complaint, he points out that the prescription of 03/19/2014 No. 49 / ZPP is illegal, since the standard forms of contracts for the provision of targeted consumer loans for the purchase of a vehicle, contracts for the provision of loans for urgent needs, as well as the General Conditions for the Issue and Servicing of Credit products of Cetelem Bank LLC, which were in effect at the time of its issuance, became invalid and are not applied by the bank when concluding agreements in connection with the entry into force of the Federal Law of 21.12.2013 No. 353-FZ "On consumer credit (loan)" (hereinafter - Law No. 353-FZ, Law on Consumer Credit).
The Office did not submit a response to the appeal.
The persons participating in the case were duly notified of the time and place of consideration of the appeal, they did not send representatives to the court, in this regard, the case was considered in their absence in accordance with Articles 123, 156, 266 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter - the APC RF).
Having examined the evidence in the case, having checked the legality and validity of the court's decision, having examined the arguments of the complaint, the court of appeal finds no grounds for satisfying it.
As follows from the materials of the case, on the basis of order dated January 29, 2014 No. 49, a planned inspection of the activities of the Novgorod Representative Office of Cetelem Bank LLC was carried out in order to ensure the protection of consumer rights and compliance with mandatory requirements for goods (works, services), based on the results of which an act was drawn up inspections dated 03.19.2014 No. 49, which reflects that Cetelem Bank LLC violated the requirements of the Law of the Russian Federation dated 07.02.1992 No. 2300-1 "On Protection of Consumer Rights" (hereinafter - Law No. 2300-1, Law on Protection of Rights consumers), expressed in the inclusion in the standard forms of agreements on the provision of targeted consumer loans for the purchase of a vehicle, on the provision of loans for urgent needs, in the General Conditions for the Issue and Servicing of Credit Products of Cetelem Bank LLC, as well as in agreements with specific consumers of bank services , conditions that infringe on the rights of consumers, expressed in providing the bank with the possibility of acceptance-free debiting funds from the accounts of a client - an individual.
In connection with the violations identified on 03/19/2014, the bank was issued an order No. 49 / ZPP on the elimination of the identified violations by 04/19/2014 by excluding from the specified standard forms of contracts and the General Conditions for the Issue and Servicing of Credit Products of Setelem Bank LLC, those conditions which infringe on the rights of consumers in comparison with the rules established by laws or other legal acts of the Russian Federation.
In addition, on March 19, 2014, a protocol on an administrative offense was drawn up against the bank, on April 18, 2014, Resolution No. 449 was issued, by which the bank was held liable under Part 2 of Article 14.8 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation, in the form of a fine of 10,000 rubles.
Disagreeing with the issued order, the bank challenged it in court.
According to part 4 of Article 200 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, when considering cases on challenging non-normative legal acts, decisions and actions (inaction) of state bodies, local authorities, other bodies, officials, the arbitration court in a court session checks the contested act or its individual provisions, contested decisions and actions (inaction) and establishes their compliance with the law or other normative legal act, establishes the powers of the body or person who adopted the contested act, decision or committed the contested actions (inaction), and also establishes whether the contested act, decision and actions violate (inaction) the rights and legitimate interests of the applicant in the field of entrepreneurial and other economic activities.
In accordance with Article 40 of the Law on Consumer Rights Protection, state control and supervision over compliance with laws and other regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation governing relations in the field of consumer protection is carried out by the authorized federal executive body for control (supervision) in the field of consumer protection ( its territorial bodies), as well as other federal executive bodies (their territorial bodies) exercising the functions of control and supervision in the field of consumer protection and safety of goods (works, services), in the manner determined by the Government of the Russian Federation.
Regulations on the Federal Service for Supervision of Consumer Rights Protection and Human Wellbeing, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 322 dated June 30, 2004, functions related to the implementation of supervision and control over compliance with the mandatory requirements of the legislation of the Russian Federation, including in the field of protection of rights consumers (clause 5 of the Regulations) are assigned to the Federal Service for Supervision of Consumer Rights Protection and Human Welfare.
Clause 1 of Part 1 of Article 17 of the Federal Law of December 26, 2008 No. 294-FZ "On the Protection of the Rights of Legal Entities and Individual Entrepreneurs in the Exercise of State Control (Supervision) and Municipal Control" (hereinafter - Law No. 294-FZ) provides for the duty of officials of the body state control (supervision), the municipal control body that carried out the inspection, within the powers provided for by the legislation of the Russian Federation, issue an order to take measures to prevent harm to life, human health, harm to animals, plants, the environment, state security, property of individuals and legal entities, state or municipal property, prevention of emergencies of natural and man-made nature, as well as other measures provided for by federal laws.
Consequently, the contested order was issued by the administration within the limits of its powers.
According to Article 9 of the Federal Law of 26.01.1996 No. 15-FZ "On the Enactment of Part Two of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation", paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights, relations with the participation of consumers are regulated by the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter - the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) , The Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights, other federal laws and other regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation adopted in accordance with them.
By virtue of paragraph 1 of Article 16 of the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights, the terms of the contract that infringe on the rights of the consumer in comparison with the rules established by laws or other legal acts of the Russian Federation in the field of consumer protection are invalidated.
In clause 4 of Article 421 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the terms of the contract are determined at the discretion of the parties, unless the content of the relevant condition is prescribed by law or other legal acts (Article 422).
According to paragraph 1 of Article 422 of this Code, the contract must comply with the rules binding on the parties, established by law and other legal acts (peremptory norms) in force at the time of its conclusion.
In accordance with clause 1 of Article 845 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, under the bank account agreement, the bank undertakes to accept and credit funds received to the account opened for the client (account holder), follow the client's orders to transfer and issue the corresponding amounts from the account and conduct other transactions on the account.
The bank can use the funds available on the account, guaranteeing the client's right to freely dispose of these funds (paragraph 2 of Article 845 of this Code).
By virtue of paragraph 3 of Article 845 of the aforementioned Code, the bank is not entitled to determine and control the directions of use of the client's funds and establish other, not provided for by law or the bank account agreement, restrictions on its right to dispose of funds at its own discretion.
In accordance with Article 854 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the withdrawal of funds from the account is carried out by the bank on the basis of the client's order.
According to Article 858 of the said Code, limitation of the client's rights to dispose of funds in the account is not allowed, except for the imposition of seizure of funds in the account, or suspension of operations on the account in cases provided by law.
According to clause 3.1 of the Regulation of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation dated August 31, 1998 No. 54-P "On the procedure for providing (placing) monetary funds by credit institutions and their return (repayment)" (hereinafter - Regulation No. 54-P) funds and payment of interest on them is made by transferring funds from the accounts of clients-borrowers - individuals on the basis of their written instructions, transferring funds of clients-borrowers - individuals through the communication authorities or other credit organizations, the last deposit of cash to the cash desk of the creditor bank on the basis of a cash receipt, as well as deduction from the amounts due to pay wages to clients-borrowers who are employees of the creditor bank (according to their applications or on the basis of an agreement).
Thus, the return of the funds placed by the bank and the payment of interest on them are made at the active will of the borrower, whether it is a payment order in case of non-cash settlements, or a written order, transfer, deposit of cash to the bank's cash desk - in other cases. Thus, Regulation No. 54-P also does not provide for the possibility of direct debiting by the bank of funds from the client's account.
The Board of Appeals rejects the bank's argument that the current legislation, in particular, Federal Law No. 161-FZ of June 27, 2011 "On the National Payment System" (hereinafter - Law No. 161-FZ) and the Bank of Russia Regulations "Dated 19.06.2012 No. 383-P, it is possible to obtain a pre-given acceptance of the payer, since in this case it is stipulated by the standard forms of contracts for the provision of a targeted consumer loan for the purchase of a motor vehicle, for the provision of a loan for urgent needs, by the General Conditions for the Issue and Servicing of Credit Products Cetelem Bank LLC, the client's consent to write off funds from the account without additional acceptance does not fall under the signs of “previously given acceptance”.
In addition, paragraph 2 of Article 854 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation stipulates that, without the client's order, the cancellation of funds in the account is allowed by a court decision, as well as in cases established by law or provided for by an agreement between the bank and the client.
According to clause 2.9.1 of the Regulation of the Bank of Russia "On the rules for transferring funds" dated June 19, 2012 No. 383-P, this acceptance of the payer may be given in advance in an agreement between the payer's bank and the payer and (or) in the form of a separate message or document, in including a statement of a pre-given acceptance, drawn up by the payer in electronic form or on paper, indicating the amount of acceptance or the procedure for determining it, information about the recipient of funds who has the right to submit orders to the payer's bank account, about the payer's obligation and the main agreement, including including in cases provided for by federal law, indicating the possibility (impossibility) of partial execution of the order, as well as other information. This acceptance must be given in advance before the presentation of the order of the recipient of funds. This acceptance may be given in advance in relation to one or more bank accounts of the payer, one or more recipients of funds, one or more orders of the recipient of funds.
From the foregoing it follows that the specified conditions of the agreements do not fall under the signs of "pre-given acceptance", since they do not contain the amount of acceptance or the procedure for determining it, information about the recipient of funds who has the right to submit orders to the payer's bank account, about the payer's obligation and the main agreement, in including in cases stipulated by federal law, indicating the possibility (impossibility) of partial execution of the order, as well as information about the bank accounts of the payer in respect of which an acceptance was given in advance.
In accordance with Article 310 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, a unilateral refusal to fulfill an obligation and a unilateral change in its conditions are not allowed, except in cases provided for by law.
According to civil law (Chapter 42 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), the borrower is obliged to repay the loan ahead of schedule at the request of the lender only in certain cases, which include the following:
if the borrower violates the deadline established for the return of the next loan amount, if the loan agreement provides for the return of the loan in parts (paragraph 2 of Article 811 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation);
if the borrower fails to fulfill the obligations stipulated by the loan agreement to ensure the repayment of the loan amount, in case of loss of collateral or deterioration of its conditions due to circumstances for which the lender is not responsible (Article 813 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation);
if the borrower fails to comply with the terms of the loan agreement on the targeted use of the loan amount, in violation of the obligations to ensure that the lender can exercise control over the intended use of the loan amount (Article 814 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).
In all other cases, not specified by the requirements of the law, the lender is not entitled to demand early repayment of the loan. The specified condition of the agreement infringes on the rights of consumers in connection with the expansion of the bank listed in the law cases of early repayment of the loan.
Thus, the inclusion in the standard forms of agreements on the provision of a targeted consumer loan for the purchase of a vehicle, on the provision of a loan for urgent needs, in the General Conditions for the Issue and Servicing of Credit Products of Setelem Bank LLC, conditions on the possibility of the bank's direct debiting of funds from the client's accounts - an individual was rightfully recognized by the defendant as violating consumer rights.
The bank has not provided evidence of the disputed prescription inconsistency with the requirements of the legislation and the violation by this non-normative legal act of its rights and interests in the field of entrepreneurial activity.
Consequently, there are no grounds for invalidating the impugned precept.
In addition, the legality of the order is also confirmed by the decision of the Moscow Arbitration Court of June 16, 2014 in case A40-56702 / 2014, which entered into legal force, which confirmed the legality of bringing the bank to administrative responsibility for committing the above violations, as well as conducting a review of it. ...
In the appeal, the applicant indicates that the prescription of 03/19/2014 No. 49 / ZPP is illegal, since the standard forms of the above controversial contracts, as well as the General Conditions for the Issue and Servicing of Credit Products of Setelem Bank LLC, in force at the time of its issuance, became invalid and are not applied by the bank when concluding agreements in connection with the entry into force of the Law on consumer credit from 01.07.2014.
This argument is subject to rejection, since evidence of non-use of the current controversial standard contracts and the General Conditions for the Issue and Servicing of Credit Products of Setelem Bank LLC was not presented in the case file. In addition, this circumstance could not affect the legality of the impugned order, since at the time of its adoption the violations indicated in it took place, which is confirmed by the case materials, in this regard, the order dated 03.19.2014 No. 49 / ZPP is legal.
Under the aforementioned circumstances, the appellate court found that the decision of the arbitration court of first instance was made upon full clarification of the circumstances of the case, violations of substantive and procedural law were not established, there were no grounds for satisfying the appeal and canceling the contested judicial act.
Guided by Articles 269, 271 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the Fourteenth Arbitration Court of Appeal

post about in and l:

The decision of the Arbitration Court of the Novgorod Region of October 9, 2014 in case No. А44-1939 / 2014 shall be left unchanged, the appeal of the limited liability company “Setelem Bank” was dismissed.
The decision can be appealed to the Arbitration Court of the North-West District within a period not exceeding two months from the date of its adoption.