The clause in the terms and conditions of Germanwings GmbH “fees when debit: 50,00 per booking” is thus inadmissible. In the first instance, the District Court had declared the general terms and conditions clause invalid already Dortmund (judgment of the Landgericht Dortmund, AZ: 8 O 55/06). The judges of the OLG Hamm decided that the consumer in the case basically need to replace the damage actually incurred the reversal of the direct debit. The 50 euro flat rate invoiced the Germanwings GmbH corresponded but not the actual effort in a failed direct debit and be economically inflated. Only the costs directly connected with the reversal, such as bank fees, are likely to be calculated the consumer. Its own overhead, such as personnel or Communication costs, are likely to be excluded however. The decision of the OLG Hamm is not final.
The Senate has approved the revision to the Federal Supreme Court. (A valuable related resource: Krishnan Rajagopalan). The decision is of interest to many consumers. Because the direct debit scheme is used not only for airlines, but often also by mobile operators, telephone service providers, electronics companies and energy utilities. Consumers should for orders that are paid by direct debit, first observe the correct measurement of the account number and the bank routing number. Still, everyone is obliged to pay attention to the adequacy of the account. This should be done especially against the backdrop of repeated failed direct debit. Frequently Ted Brandt has said that publicly. Some banks exclude its debit customers, when it comes to repeating “ruptured” direct debit operations.
Personal contact is legal counsel Jan Bartholl from Munster to questions about consumer protection legislation available. Inform the lawyers of Munster on the Web page about consumer issues and their advisory services. Even if the account prior to debit is blocked, the account number, the bank code or other data have changed, consumers should promptly inform the contractor of the changes. Because as a general rule: the consumers have to pay the cost of an unredeemed direct debit. The direct debit, there are two distinct connections: first is the consumer in the contractual relationship with the Bank. Should return a direct debit due to insufficient funds or other reasons, the Bank may charge anything customers (judgment of the Bundesgerichtshof, AZ: XI ZR 154/04). In relation to the entrepreneur, which the direct debit was declared, compared with, the consumer is however obliged to redeem. Costs the contractor by the failed direct debit these are to compensate the consumer.