The amendment to the act on competition and consumer protection, in force since 17 April 2016, introduced a ban on the so-called ‘misselling’ as a new type of practice that violates collective consumer interests. The sale of products that are not suited to the needs of clients is a frequent reason for complaints to courts and institutions of consumer protection. Thus, it has a negative impact on clients' trust in financial market entities, because it exposes them to unnecessary risk and generates additional service costs. The financial services market is a type of market that has a significant impact on its customers. The source of threats may be the fact that financial institutions operate in an area of increased risk with a relatively low share of equity, and also, they rely on the funds entrusted to them by clients. The aim of this paper is to identify the phenomenon of misselling, explain the reasons for which it is undesirable from the point of view of consumer protection, and present solutions for its reduction. The paper is based on a review, analysis, and synthesis of selected publications (domestic and foreign) which are important from the point of view of the topic. Moreover, the paper includes an analysis of secondary data from official documents and reports of financial market entities.
The purpose of this article. The purpose of this study is to identify the occurrence of misselling in the process of offering and selling corporate bonds of GetBack SA. Methodology. The study included a literature review, analysis of secondary data derived from official documents such as decisions issued by the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection, reports of the Supreme Audit Office, and studies by the Financial Ombudsman. The result of the research. The area where the phenomenon of misselling occurred is undoubtedly the case regarding the process of offering and selling bonds of GetBack SA. The circumstances of the case indicate that there were irregularities in the sales process, which consisted in misleading the customers about the offered products, which were not adapted to their needs and carried a high investment risk, disregarding their investor knowledge. Furthermore, in the opinion of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection and the Financial Ombudsman.
W artykule opisano przykładowe praktyki prowadzące do zjawiska nazywanego szeroko „patodeweloperką”. Wyszczególnione zabiegi stosowane przez deweloperów poddano analizie prawnej. Przeanalizowano poszczególne postanowienia zawarte w Ustawie z dnia 20 maja 2021 r. o ochronie praw nabywcy lokalu mieszkalnego lub domu jednorodzinnego oraz Deweloperskim Funduszu Gwarancyjnym (Dz.U.2021.1177 z dnia 2021.06.30). Przeprowadzono badanie ukazujące udział transakcji flippingowych w transakcjach sprzedaży. Ustalono podstawowe źródła przytoczonego problemu, jak również wskazano przykładowe działania prowadzące do zmniejszenia skali uchybień.
EN
The article describes examples of practices leading to the phenomenon broadly referred to as “patho-development”. The listed treatments used by developers were subjected to legal analysis. The individual provisions of Act of May 20th 2021 - on the protection of the rights of the purchaser of a dwelling or single-family home and the Developer Guarantee Fund (Journal of Laws 2021.1177 of 2021.06.30) were analyzed. A study was carried out showing the share of flipping transactions in sales transactions. The basic sources of the indicated problem were determined, as well as exemplary actions leading to the reduction of the scale of violations.
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.