Monobank charged the Kyiv woman 149,811 hryvnias in interest on the loan, she went to court

The woman had an account in Monobank with a credit limit of 100,000 hryvnias. She was charged interest in the amount of 149,811 hryvnias. She asks to apply the consequences of the nullity of the contract on the provision of banking services in terms of interest payments for the use of credit.

This is stated in the decision of the Svyatoshyn District Court of Kyiv, published on April 3, 2024.

Back in 2020, the woman opened an account at Monobank. According to the statement on the movement of funds on her card, as of June 6, 2023, the debt amounted to 336,145 hryvnias. She points out that charging interest on the card is groundless, because by signing the contract on the provision of banking services, she agreed to open an account and set a credit limit. According to her calculation, the difference between the received and returned funds is: (162,832 hryvnias – 281,660 hryvnias) = ​​118,828 hryvnias.

The woman returned to Monobank 118,828 hryvnias more than she received from him. Therefore, the overpayment must be returned. Despite this, the statement on the movement of funds on the card states that as of June 1, 2023, the debt is 236,145 hryvnias. Therefore, this debt was accrued illegally.

Proceedings of the case

On the basis of the concluded contract, the woman received a loan in the form of a set credit limit for a payment card in the amount of 12,000 hryvnias, which was later increased to 180,000 hryvnias. As can be seen from the statement on the movement of funds on the card dated August 1, 2023, she used the credit funds provided to her on the account.

The client violated the terms of the contract regarding the timely repayment of payments, as a result of which the debt arose. According to the calculation of arrears under the contract as of 07/31/2023, the total outstanding balance of the loan granted (the body of the loan) amounted to UAH 335,447, the total interest outstanding balance was UAH 0.

Court decision

< p>The court decided to reject the woman's claim. By filling out the application form, the borrower confirmed that she had read and accepted the relevant terms of the loan.

“The court concludes that the claim should be rejected, as there are no grounds for applying the consequences of the invalidity of the contract on the provision of banking services in terms of interest payment”, – the court emphasized.