Prohibited VAS in lending companies
The President of UOKiK (Office of Competition and Consumer Protection) has taken action against two lending companies and an intermediary for practices involving the addition of paid value-added services (VAS) to credit agreements. The allegations concern the lack of clear information about the costs and conditions of these services, which resulted in an increase in the total repayment amount and enabled lenders to circumvent statutory limits on credit costs. This practice has been repeatedly reported by consumers in complaints to UOKiK.
What are VAS?
VAS, or Value Added Services, are additional services attached to loan offers, such as medical packages, courses, or IT services. In theory, they are intended to make the offer more attractive, but in practice, they are often used to increase the company’s profit. Consumers rarely use these packages, yet their cost is included in the loan amount, raising the financial burden. Clients often only became aware of the fees after signing the agreement.
Allegations against Aasa Polska
Aasa Polska allegedly presented the total loan amount as including the cost of additional services and made the granting of the loan conditional on their acceptance. The version of the offer without VAS was sometimes presented in a way that made it appear less favorable. In addition, withdrawing from the service required a separate statement, which could confuse clients and make it more difficult to exercise their right of withdrawal. Some complaints indicated that the offer without additional services was deliberately made less transparent.
Allegations against CAPITAL Service
CAPITAL Service did not inform clients during phone calls about bundled, paid additional services, and in the online panel the offer with the additional product was set as the default option. As a result, consumers could automatically agree to additional charges, which increased the loan amount and led to exceeding statutory credit cost limits.
The role of Infostom as intermediary
Infostom acted as an intermediary in concluding loan agreements, while at the same time entering into contracts in its own name for medical and educational packages. Consumers reported a lack of reliable information and informed consent, and in some cases only discovered the attached services after repaying the loan. Such practices led to unintended obligations and higher repayment costs. Consumers also lost the ability to easily compare the actual costs of different offers.
Consequences for consumers
Consumers often failed to distinguish between the amount of the loan granted and the repayment amount, leading to false expectations and unintentional indebtedness. The attached packages were rarely used, yet they increased the debt and the overall cost of the loan. The result was greater pressure on household budgets, more difficulty in comparing offers, and obstacles in exercising the right to withdraw from individual services.
UOKiK actions and consequences
UOKiK launched explanatory proceedings and brought initial charges against the identified entities. If the allegations are confirmed, the companies may face fines of up to 10% of their annual turnover. The authority is analyzing whether the information was presented fairly and is working on legislative amendments to the Consumer Credit Act aimed at limiting abuses related to the addition of extra services.
Conclusions and regulatory risks
The VAS problem reveals systemic risks: hidden fees, misleading consumers, and using additional services to artificially inflate loan costs. The proceedings initiated concern situations where, in connection with a loan agreement or intermediation, other non-financial services are offered. UOKiK’s materials indicate that these “extras” are rarely used. Consumers are misled and burdened with unsuitable packages.
This article was prepared as part of the 56th edition of Compliance Insights. The graphic version in Polish is available on our LinkedIn profile and in the Polish Knowledge Base.
