The Murcia PA ratifies the compensation of 9,000 to a woman who was improperly included in a register of defaulters

November 24 , 2017 // Specialty

Published in Confilegal

The court of the First Civil Section of the Provincial Court of Murcia, acting on appeal, has ratified the ruling against Legal Plus, SL, which punished this company to pay 9,000 euros for moral damages to a woman who had been improperly included in her record of defaulters.
The ruling, signed by magistrates Miguel Ángel Larrosa Amante, as president, Fernando López del Amo González and Andrés Pacheco Guevara, considers that the one issued by the Court of First Instance number 4 of Totana, against Asnef-Equifax and Legal Plus, is in accordance with the law. SL on October 30, 2016. The first resigned to file an appeal.
According to the ruling, the woman filed a claim for protection of her right to honor for illegitimate interference by being included in the file of debtors of the codefendant Asnef-Equifax, product of an incorrect debt derived from an invoice of 312.88 euros of Canal Satélite Digital (CSD).
The legal conflict has its origin in May 2009.
At that time, the woman withdrew from CSD and requested that the deposit deposited be reimbursed at the time the service was contracted. He proposed, according to the ruling, the reimbursement of the money as a prior condition to return the device.
CSD did not answer anything to the client.
Three years later, in May 2012, CSD ceded the loan to Legal Plus, S.L., a company that claimed the woman's return of the decoder, which she did in June.
Legal Plus S.L. also tried to charge 300 euros, as a penalty for not having returned the device at the time, plus 12.88 euros for the rental of the device in June 2009.
The woman refused and, consequently, Legal Plus S.L. he included it in a file of defaulters.
THERE ARE 3 REQUIREMENTS TO INCLUDE SOMEONE IN A MOROSOS FILE

The court of appeal says in its judgment that the "Jurisprudence that develops articles 28 and 29 of L.O. 15/1999, of December 13, Protection of Personal Data (LOPD), and articles 38 to 43 of its Regulations, considers that there are three precise requirements to estimate valid the inclusion of a person in the files of defaulters : 1) the debt must be certain, due, liquid and due before being included in the files of defaulters; 2) It must not have elapsed at the time of the inclusion more than 6 years since the payment of the debt had to be made; and 3) Previous payment requirement before its inclusion in equity solvency files ".
Of those three conditions, according to the sentence, the first is not met. "This room considers that the invoice for 312.88 euros that motivated the inclusion of the actor in the ASNEF files is not correct".
He adds: "The sanction for not returning the decoder equipment is not considered appropriate from the moment in which [the woman] had already exposed CSD that she would return the equipment when she returned the deposit deposited in her day for the delivery of the decoder".
"The second requirement is also understood to have been fulfilled since 6 years have not elapsed since the non-payment of compensation by [the woman] occurred," he continues.
THE WOMAN WAS NOT WARNED OF HIS INCLUSION IN A MOROSOS FILE
In the third condition is in which Legal Plus, S.L. he erred fully.
"It has not been proven that 'Legal Plus, S.L.' would have warned Mr. Jesús Luis that, should he maintain his position of not paying the bill, he would report the delinquent files to presume his insolvency."
"Proof of effective compliance with the requirement and warning corresponds to the entity that sends the alleged debtor to the files of defaulters, despite having the evidentiary facility, having waived the defendant [Legal Plus, SL] to accredit it in time before the demonstrated passivity in cars that resulted in him not answering the claim and was declared in absentia, "he adds.

CAN NOT ASSUME A PRESSURE METHOD
The Provincial Court recalls the jurisprudence established on the files of defaulters.
"The Supreme Court has already declared in cases of files of defaulters that the inclusion of users in such files is a method of pressure that represents an illegitimate interference in the right to honor, and that inclusion 'can not be used by large companies to seek to obtain the collection of the amounts that they consider pertinent, relying on the fear of personal discredit and impairment of their professional prestige, the denial of access to the credit system that implies appearing in a file of defaulters, avoiding, with such practice, the expenses that would be incurred the initiation of the judicial procedure, many times superior to the amount of the debts that they claim ", says the sentence.
Therefore, the Court of the AP of Murcia concludes that the "defective way" to include the woman in the files of defaulters "was not adjusted to the regulations of the LOPD, and therefore, there was an illegitimate intromission in his honor that had to be excluded from the records of defaulters in as much as it did not fulfill all the requirements demanded by the Law ".
In addition to the 9,000 euros Legal Plus, S.L. It has also been ordered to pay the costs.

Share
La AP de Murcia ratifica la indemnización de 9.000 a una mujer que fue incluida indebidamente en un registro de morosos
USO DE COOKIES

This website uses cookies themselves and third parties to provide a better experience and service. When browsing or using our services you agree to our use of cookies Read more