1 (7)
2016-11-18
EBA consultation paper on technical standards implementing
the Payment Accounts Directive
4.2.2 Identification of the most common services
Question 1: Do you agree with the EBA’s decision to take a broad approach to
defining ‘service’? Please explain your reasoning.
The aim with selecting a number of core services is to make it easy for the consumer
to rapidly get an overview and to facilitate comparisons. The consumer must easily
be able to distinguish different kinds of services and what is included in each service.
It is key to avoid that the consumer gets confused or wrongly compare the prices of
different market actors’ services when in fact the services differ in functionality and
content.
The chosen option A using a broad approach where a large number of subcategories will need to be introduced in the Fee Information Document (FID) will
result in a relatively long and complex list of services which will vary significantly
between the banks. Some will have a large number of sub-services and for each of
those detailed content and price information, while others will not. The clear overview
may then not be achieved. It needs to be kept in mind that besides the FID the
consumer will also receive the banks’ complete price list. For that reason the FID
does not need to be exhaustive in each category.
The Swedish Bankers’ Association has a preference for option b), focusing on the
most frequently used services or those which imply the highest costs following the
EBA criteria, presented in a clear way, complementing the full information the
consumer will get under all circumstances. The national preliminary list elaborated by
the Swedish Supervisory Authority which was sent to EBA at an earlier stage
seemed in an accurate way focus on a limited number of fairly specific services
widely used. As we understand the consultation document that list would be
categorised as an option b list.
2 (7)
Question 2: Do you consider the services that the EBA has selected for
standardised terms and definitions to be suitable to achieve the aims of the
Directive? Please explain your reasoning.
 “Provision of a credit card with a payment account” (c) does not reflect
common practices on the Swedish market. It is fairly rare that a credit card is
linked to a particular account. The credit card is a separate service where the
consumer has the choice whether the costs incurred should be transferred
from a particular account or paid by other means. From a FID perspective we
question if a credit card is a basic service linked to a bank account. Debit
cards are necessary means of payment, used by almost all customers, and
do not involve any risk of indebtedness. Credit cards follow another logic and
can hardly be seen as a basic feature of a bank account.
 “Overdraft on a payment account” (h) does not exist in Sweden as a specific
service. We are aware that is the case in some other countries. A consumer
cannot in advance agree on an overdraft of an account in Sweden. The
Swedish meaning of the term is that a consumer, violating the agreement
with the bank, exceeds the available sum on his or her account. An overdraft
fee then will need to be paid. Consequently it is not the matter of a service in
the FID context. It would be most inappropriate that in the FID the consumer
should be informed what it costs to misuse the account, i.e. something which
is uncommon, which should be avoided and may signal that it is an
acceptable behaviour.
4.2.3 Drafting approach for the standardised terms and definitions
Question 3: Do you consider the drafting decisions taken by the EBA for the
standardised terms and definitions, and the resultant provisions in the Recitals
of the draft RTS, to be suitable for achieving the aims of the Directive of
enhancing transparency and comparability? Please explain your reasoning.
In paragraph 50 it is stated that that the definitions should focus on the service itself
rather than defining precisely what is meant by the constituent elements of the
service. The Swedish Bankers’ Association does not disagree with this approach but
wishes to stress that the FID must provide space and the possibility for the banks to
elaborate on the features and usage possibilities of a service, for instance a card. To
simply provide the annual fee for a “debit card” without being able to explain what
differs the card from other cards in the bank and in other banks will not make the FID
very useful and will be misleading from a consumer point of view. Different levels of
the annual fee may be explained by the fact that one card includes a travel insurance
while another does not. Also see response to question 5.
4.2.4 Terms and definitions in all official languages
3 (7)
Question 4: Do you consider the terms and definitions proposed by the EBA in
the Annex to the draft RTS, and the resultant provisions in the Recitals of the
draft RTS, to be adequate for achieving the aims of the Directive of enhancing
transparency and comparability? If not, please provide alternative terms and
definitions and their underlying rationale.
 “Account maintenance” (a): The Swedish translation should be “Innehav av
konto”.
 See question 2 on “overdraft on a payment account” (“kontokredit”). The
service intended by EBA is rare and the present Swedish term misleading. If
the service will figure on the list, which hopefully will not be the case, the
translation into Swedish should be “övertrasseringsrätt”. This is not a
common term since the service as such does not exist. However, it is as
close one can get the meaning of the English term.

For your information, the term “övertrassering” is more common in the
Swedish language but it is not linguistically equivalent to “overdraft on a
payment account” in the meaning of the FID. “Övertrassering” is not a service
linked to a payment account but a fee paid by the consumer in case of
misuse of his or her account. The term cannot for that reason be used in the
FID.
Regarding the definition of debit and credit card: Inconsistencies when the
terms “account” (konto) and “payment account” (betalkonto) are used. Should
be payment account.
Banks in Sweden have modernised and changed their way of communicating with
their customers since several years back. It is important to have a consumer
perspective when addressing the customers departing from consumers’ needs, using
a plain and simple language. We note that the EBA technical standards seem
somehow conservative with a top down perspective.
4.4.1 The FID template
Question 5: Do you consider the FID template that is being proposed in the
draft ITS and its Annex to be suitable to achieve the aims of the Directive?
Please explain your reasoning.
At the beginning of the FID, second bullet point there is space for the provider to
inform the consumer where to find full information regarding the services linked to
the account. It is important that the consumers are properly informed where they will
get further information both regarding services figuring in the FID and other services
linked to the account. This is necessary since otherwise consumers will be confused
by receiving several price lists or wrongly believe that the FID is exhaustive. We
4 (7)
suggest that the text is redrafted, moved to the very top of the FID and clearly
marked to avoid any kind of misunderstanding and confusion.
As explained in our response to question 3 there is a need to be able to explain the
features of the services, present differing prices for one and the same service
depending on the channel used etc. Focus must be to make the FID consumer
friendly, clear and transparent rather than focusing on the number of pages or the
space to be used. A too formalistic approach will be counterproductive. Given that
the FID permits the banks to explain the features of the services, the Swedish
Bankers’ Association welcomes that there is no limit to the number of pages of the
FID (para 80).
Question 6: Do you consider the common symbol in the FID template that is
being proposed in the draft ITS and its Annex suitable to achieve the aims of
the Directive? Please explain your reasoning.
No views on the symbol. It should be added a text next to the symbol “Standardised
EU information sheet” since many consumers will not be aware of the symbol and
may not understand why besides the bank’s normal price list they also receive the
FID.
4.4.2 Instructions for PSPs on how to complete the FID
Question 7: Do you consider the proposed instructions for the completion of
the FID template contained in Articles 2 to 11 of the draft ITS, to be suitable to
achieve the aims of the Directive? Please explain your reasoning.
Para 102: The Swedish Bankers’ Association welcomes that space is only limited
when it comes to the width of the columns. See comments under question 3 and 5.
There needs to be unlimited space to explain the features of each service provided,
several prices may figure depending on channel and to which customer group the
service is provided (students, VIP customers etc.). We understand from different
places in the text that it is EBA’s view that there needs to be room for this kind of
complete product information (the contrary would make the FID misleading and of no
value for the consumer) but this should be clarified to avoid any misunderstanding by
National Supervisory Authorities (NSA).
Para 106: It should be considered whether the deletion of sub headings and cells
which are not applicable may make it more difficult for the consumer to get an
overview when comparing the FID:s of different banks.
Regarding packages, following the given example, this seems to refer to bundles
comprising several services, e.g. a student package. Contrary to for instance a debet
card which includes a travel insurance, which will be displayed under debit cards and
5 (7)
where the inclusion of a travel insurance is mentioned among the features of the
card. This is logic since otherwise most debit cards would figure under packages
which would be unclear and make comparisons difficult. Again possibly guidance
and clarification may be needed to avoid any hesitation on this point by NSAs.
Question 8: Do you consider the proposed instructions for the completion of
the FID template contained in Articles 2 to 11 of the draft ITS, to be clear and
easy to follow? Please explain your reasoning.
See question 7. Questions occur when following the instructions. There is room for
clarifications in the text.
4.5.1 The SoF template
Question 9: Do you consider the SoF template that is being proposed in draft
ITS and its Annex to be suitable to achieve the aims of the Directive? Please
explain your reasoning.
In Sweden it is common that consumers have several payment accounts with basic
features (those covered by scope of the directive) in the same bank. These
consumers will receive a number of SoF:s. The banks should have the option to
merge information relating to one consumer having several accounts in one SoF.
At the top of the statement there should be space for an optional sentence: “More
information will be found in your annual statement from the bank”. This is necessary
since otherwise consumers may be confused by receiving several statements which
include different services (the bank’s annual statements may also include
investments products etc. and obligatory tax related information which does not
figure on the SoF).
Para 124: The intention seems to be that banks in the box “Statement of fees”
should chronologically number the statements. The Swedish Bankers’ Association
find that information of little use for the consumer. The importance is to what period
the statement refers. We suggest the deletion of that line.
6 (7)
Question 10: Do you consider the common symbol that is being proposed in
the draft ITS and its Annex to be suitable to achieve the aims of the Directive?
Please explain your reasoning.
No views on the symbol. Possibly a text should be added next to the symbol
“Standardised EU statement of fees” since many consumers will not be aware of the
symbol and may not understand why besides the bank’s annual statement they also
receive the SoF.
4.5.2 Instructions for PSPs on how to complete the SoF
Question 11: Do you consider the proposed instructions for payment services
providers on how to complete the SoF template, contained in Articles 2 to 16 of
the draft ITS, to be suitable to achieve the aims of the Directive? Please explain
your reasoning.
A general remark is that several of the Swedish Bankers’ Association’s members do
not find it obvious to follow the instructions and fill out the form in a way that properly
reflects the services they offer and that provides consumers with a clear picture of
the cost of their engagements. This is probably unavoidable when drafting a
standard which is supposed to work in all Member States which differ a lot when it
comes to what services that are offered and how they are customized. To
understand what services – financial and others - they actually get at what price,
Swedish consumers will probably in many cases be better informed by the banks’
annual statements. For this reason we wish to refer back to our response to question
9 and stress the importance of a sentence guiding the customer that more
information is to be found in his or her annual statement from the bank.
Clarification is needed in the instructions regarding accounts with several account
holders. We suggest that the statement should include information on the total fees
and interests paid in relation to the account. To divide fees etc. by the number of
account holders will both be confusing for the consumer and demand far reaching
and costly system adaptions for the banks. Thus, clarification is needed in the
instruction on this point. On the same topic, it should be indicated what contact
details to use in these cases and there is need for a standard text, e.g. “Remember
that if you are several account holders the information in this SoF indicates the total
amount of fees paid for the account”.
See question 2. On the SoF shall appear services “linked to your payment account”.
In Sweden credit cards in most cases are not linked to an account. Consequently
credit card fees and interest rates will in most cases not be displayed on the SoF
which relates to a particular bank account.
As explained in the response to question 2 agreed overdraft linked to an account
does not exist in Sweden. Given this, “Total interest paid” will in the case of Sweden
7 (7)
only include information in cases where the consumer wrongly has misused his or
her account and been obliged to pay an interest rate.
Question 12: Do you consider the proposed instructions for payment service
providers on how to complete the SoF template contained in Articles 2 to 16 of
the draft ITS, to be clear and easy to follow? Please explain your reasoning.
See question 11.
General remark
A final general remark: Several EU legislative acts including information
requirements enter into force shortly. For instance regarding the statement of fees a
coordination between the PAD and MiFID 2 requirements would be beneficiary for
the consumer to get a better overview and, from a sustainability point of view, it
would limit the amount of paper.