Bank of Italy: the ABF announces the return of the ten-year limitation period

Changes are on the horizon for the Banking and Financial Ombudsman (ABF), particularly with regard to the limitation period: this is what emerged from a recent meeting between the Bank of Italy and consumer organisations. There was strong opposition to the proposal for a single ombudsman to handle financial matters. The meeting addressed a wide range of issues: from the handling of complaints and appeals to the ABF, to the prevention of fraud in digital payments and the proper management of disputed transactions, right through to initiatives for financial inclusion via the basic account and the strategic path towards the introduction of the digital euro.

As regards the Banking and Financial Ombudsman, the Bank of Italia is due to launch a consultation shortly. “One idea that will be considered is whether to revert to a limitation period for appeals to the Ombudsman that is linked to the ten-year limitation period under civil law – explains Magda Bianco, head of the Bank of Italia’s Department for Consumer Protection and Financial Education – whilst the current time limit for the Arbitrator is six years. Certain European regulations could also have implications regarding jurisdiction. For example, with the implementation of MiCAR, there could be scope for bringing cases before the ABF in the event of problems with electronic money issuers. There may also be some consideration regarding AI legislation, but everything is still subject to assessment’.

Still on the subject of arbitration, Bianco comments on the suggestion (reported by Plus24 on 8 August) that a single arbitrator might be established for the financial sector: ‘The true strength of arbitrators lies in their link to the supervisory activities of the Authority that established them. This determines the effectiveness of their decisions and the high degree of compliance by intermediaries. A single arbitrator would sever this link, thereby losing effectiveness. A single access portal – on which we have been actively working for some time now with the Financial Disputes Arbitrator (ACF) and in which the Insurance Arbitrator will also participate – could be a useful solution to make life easier for the public.”

With regard to developments in out-of-court dispute resolution and the Bank of Italia’s forthcoming public consultation, Anna Vizzari of Altroconsumo highlights the importance of the ABF, describing it as: ‘an out-of-court dispute resolution body which, in recent years, has proved to be of vital importance not only in resolving disputes, but also in providing behavioural guidelines for financial intermediaries’. On the subject of financial inclusion and the uptake of basic bank accounts — a scheme which has so far seen only 180,000 accounts opened out of a potential pool of 7 million vulnerable people — Vizzari expresses her appreciation for the Supervisory Authority’s intervention, welcoming: ‘the Bank of Italia’s letter to financial intermediaries obliging them to proactively offer this service’. Finally, looking at the digital transformation of payments and the pilot phase of the digital euro scheduled for 2027, Vizzari emphasised the importance of public information and awareness, arguing that: “it is essential to work together on educating and informing the public so that the full potential of the new currency is truly understood”.

Alongside the reform of the ABF, the meeting addressed the substantive protection of customers in the face of rising fraud in electronic payments, which now account for over a third of the complaints submitted to the Arbitrator. As Massimo Melpignano of Konsumer points out: ‘With regard to the rules on dispute resolution, the Bank of Italia has reiterated that the use of strong customer authentication (SCA) does not in itself constitute sufficient evidence to presume gross negligence on the part of the consumer. In the event of an unauthorised transaction, intermediaries are obliged to open a case immediately and arrange a refund within one working day (T+1), without being able to make the refund conditional upon the submission of documents not required by law, such as a report to the authorities or bank statements already in their possession. The Supervisory Authority has highlighted various improper practices observed in the markets, including blanket refusals, formulaic responses or unjustified delays.”