The exemption of a person with mental disability from the loans he entered into with a former SEA, was decided by the Financial Commissioner Pavlos Ioannou, with a final decision dated 26 May. According to a note, the complaint was filed by an authorized representative of a person with a fully established mental disability.
According to his final decision, the complainant had received two loans from the former SPE Strovolos, which have now been transferred to KEDIPES.
With an interim decision on November 18, 2021, the Commissioner called on KEDIPES "to proceed immediately and without any further delay in the cancellation" of a planned sale process in a final and irrevocable manner. KEDIPES complied and canceled the auction process, it is added.
In the conclusions of his final decision, issued on May 26, 2022, the Commissioner calls on KEDIPES to "completely and completely relieve the Complainant of any of its claims for the loans in question", which it must write off in full. Apparently, because of this, he notes, all the mortgaged properties of the Complainant are exempted, which secures the loans in question.
According to medical certificates, it appears that the complainant had already been diagnosed since 1979, as a person with a low level of intelligence, says the Commissioner. Therefore, both when applying for and signing the loan agreements in question and after they were granted, he was not able to understand what he was signing and did not have or has the ability to repay the loans in question. That is why no installment payment has been observed so far, he reports. In addition, a certificate dated 23/04/2018, demonstrates the validation of the registration of the complainant in the Register B of the Committee for the Protection of Persons with Mental Disabilities, in accordance with the provisions of the Law on Persons with Mental Disabilities of 1989.
From these, according to the Commissioner, it is clear that the Complainant did not have the capacity to contract legally, because he does not meet the requirements of Articles 11 and 12 of Chapter 149. Article 12 of Chapter 149, which is fully relevant to the interpretation of the term "party who has the body of the brakes", states that the person at the time of its training, has the body of the brakes, if he can perceive it and form a rational judgment about its consequences on his interests. Otherwise, as is the case here, he is not able to legally contract.
Therefore, the Commissioner notes that the energy of API to grant the loans in question, but also its attitude, for almost a decade, not to take any action to address the serial delays in the repayment of loans, raises, unquestionably, many questions. From a simple examination of the account statements of the loans in question, it was found that any installment was never paid by the Complainant, in either of the two loans.
Therefore, the responsibilities of API, moral, civil and others, are enormous, he concludes. "These are responsibilities, both to the complainant and to the Co-operation, and consequently to the State, due to the consequent damages caused by the loan in question and will be caused by the inevitable write-off of the loans in question", noted Mr. Ioannou, adding that for the various harmful and illegal behaviors of SPE Strovolos, the Report of the Research Committee for the Collapse of the Cooperative Credit System of Cyprus, chaired by Mr. George Arestis, has been sufficiently mentioned.
In addition, from the point of view of SPE Strovolos, it does not seem that they carried out the necessary control and / or operated with due diligence, during the examination of the application for both loans and / or after their granting, the Commissioner concludes. Nor did they take the necessary steps, as they should, to protect the complainant, as a person with a mental disability. Consequently, they violated both the provisions of Chapter 149 and the relevant provisions of the 1989 Law on Persons with Mental Disabilities.
However, a possible allegation by KEDIPES that he was unaware of the complainant's condition does not seem to affect the outcome of the final decision, as the complainant had and still has serious mental problems, according to the unshakable data and testimonies he had before him. the Commissioner.
Regarding the claim that the complainant never reaped the disbursed amounts due to his situation, the Commissioner states that the complainant appears to have been exploited by third parties, from whom he was not only motivated to contract with the API, but it seems, always according to the relevant allegation, that these individuals reaped the said amounts. "Consequently, both the granting of the loans in question and their subsequent handling conflict with any banking logic and practice and are in complete contradiction with any rational meaning of a legally granted loan," he concludes.
Mr. Ioannou states that he forwarded the case to the Attorney General, on the basis of Article 27 (1) of the Law, which provides that the Financial Commissioner "sends the cases for which a criminal offense may have been committed and the cases that may relating to the public interest to the Attorney General of the Republic ". In addition, he informed the Minister of Finance about any of his actions, because KEDIPES, against which the complaint is directed, is an entity controlled, in essence, by the State, as the complainant is a person with a mental disability, and therefore his rights are protected. and are regulated by the 1989 Law on Persons with Mental Disabilities, which also defines the responsibilities of the State towards it.
Finally, the Commissioner emphasizes that "it is an insurmountable need in order to restore the legality and effectively implement the Law on Persons with Mental Disabilities of 1989, as KEDIPES immediately proceeds to exempt the Complainant from any claim in relation to the loans in question, deleting , in full and in full, any liability that may arise from them, including the cancellation of all relevant mortgages on such loans. It is necessary for the State to take care in this direction ".
In the meantime, he points out that the issuance of the final decision on the case was based solely on the evidence before him, as, despite his constant appeals to KEDIPES for further clarification, the said entity did not respond as it should. "This omission is a heinous crime, as defined in article 26 of the Law on the Establishment and Operation of the Single Body for Out-of-Court Settlement of Disputes of a Financial Nature of 2010", he notes.