From the documents that the clients had submitted to the Ombudsman, it was clear that the asset manager had probably played a driving role in connection with their identical complaints. He was visibly upset about the bank’s business policy decision to no longer work with external asset managers. The clients finally opened banking relationships with a bank in French-speaking Switzerland with which their asset manager was already working, as the change to the group company of the previous bank was out of the question for both of them for language reasons.

In their complaints, the clients were of the opinion that the title transfer fees charged to them were not lawful because they substantially exceeded the bank’s costs associated with the transfer. They considered it objectionable to have to pay such fees when the decision that forced them to change banks was the sole responsibility of the bank. According to them, without this decision they would have stayed with the bank.

As a first step, the Ombudsman informed the clients about the fee principles which were explained in more detail in case 2022/20 above. He also informed them that, in his experience, the banks’ fee tables generally did, with regard to fees related to the closure of a banking relationship (e.g. title delivery fees), not distinguish which party had set the reason for the closure of the. These were usually contractually owed irrespective of this. Despite this legal position, the Ombudsman signaled some understanding for the clients’ view that the charging of such fees was not appropriate in the present case and pointed to critical voices in connection with balancing fees. Finally, he asked the clients to provide him with a copy of the fee tables they had accepted from the previous bank and asked them whether their new bank had contributed to the title transfer fees in any way. If so, this should have been taken into account when discussing an amicable solution with the previous bank.

The clients provided confirmation from the acquiring bank that it had not contributed to the title delivery fees, as the Ombudsman observed was sometimes the case in the market. The fee tables submitted also showed that there was a contractual basis for the title delivery fees charged by the bank. As suspected, it did not distinguish which party had set the motive for the title transfer. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman decided to contact the bank and ask it to reconsider the cases presented.

The Ombudsman advised her that critical voices had been heard for years in connection with netting fees. This was mainly because such fees are considered to hinder competition insofar as they substantially exceed a bank’s actual expenses in connection with the termination of a business relationship. In this context, he referred to a market observation by the Swiss official price supervisor and to steps taken by SECO (State Secretariat for Economic Affairs) against a number of banks on this issue. As he also had some understanding for the fact that clients found the fees disturbing under the circumstances, he asked the bank to consider going further than the reduction already offered, even if the fees charged could be justified by the standard fee tariff. After a detailed discussion of the matter, the bank agreed and exceptionally waived the title transfer fees in the cases presented.

In his final communication, the Ombudsman pointed out to the asset manager and the clients that the latter had accepted a fee arrangement with their new bank in which the disputed issue of title transfer fees was, in his understanding, regulated in the same way as with their original bank. Since they were so harshly critical of this arrangement at their original bank, he recommended that they look into this point.