Differences lawyer in the direct debit scheme by lawyer Jan Bartholl – your Munster offered 02.04.2008 (Ko) – which is payment by direct debit as opposed to the transfer of many companies in the Internet as a proven and particularly cashless means of payment. In contrast to the transfer consumer authorizes the company to collect the corresponding amount of money to the Bank. Problems often occur when the account is not covered. The contractor of the Bank for failed posting has denied the direct debit, the raised costs. These costs are trying to offload companies frequently by their terms and conditions to the customers. The costs, which charge banks for a failed direct debit, are different. Often, both the Bank of the entrepreneur and of the customer’s Bank make the cost of a failed direct debit in account.
Despite all the raised usually not higher than 6-9 costs Euro per failed direct debit. In times of automated Booking of flights, travel and holiday packages over the Internet or a call center often use consumers in Germany to the direct debit as a payment method, because many companies, in particular, the so-called low-cost airlines or low-cost carriers such as Germanwings, Ryanair, easyJet or AirBerlin, charge a separate fee for payment by credit card. Company may demand the reimbursement of the costs resulting from the consumer for back-booked and failed direct debits. Some companies are however very high fees, then verschleiernd referred to as ‘rear load pesen’ or ‘Processing fee’. Just like to as low-cost or low-cost-carrier long titulierenden air carriers in the event of a failed direct debit powerful to. The costs provided to consumers in the event of a failed direct debit in accounting include coated and non-refundable costs in many cases significantly. The higher regional court of Hamm decided that the flat-rate fee of the airline of Germanwings amounting to 50 euros, which had it charged its customers in an abortive attempt by direct debit, was ineffective (judgment of the higher regional court of Hamm, AZ: 17 U 112/07).
After all scientific and practical knowledge about the existence of volatile stock markets, it for a large customer group is highly unlikely that with the concept of the UniProfirente generate a return clearly above 0% sold here to guarantee secure cyclically at unfavourable falling prices, according to the principle, sell low, buy high “.” Worse, however, is that the reverse trend following, when rising prices with the amount from the pension funds in the stock market to return, also not used for the product. Only shares in new savings contributions flow for some customers back in equity funds, what is not sufficient but, again to correct the shortfall elsewhere. Here is speculation with the money of the customers to the retirement in a questionable way. Riester savers but should not rebuild your retirement on the principle of “Hans IM Gluck”! It would be better the product of the DWS RiesterRente premium FocusMoney, which customers again participate in rising stock markets can be partly make, the winner of the magazine. Kaihan Krippendorff often expresses his thoughts on the topic. But also here the problem of a so-called pension case (cash case lock-) basically according to Riester Fund Vergleich.de, because some customers remain trapped after a stock market slump in bond funds, if the remainder is not sufficient to raise the guarantee capital. The concept of UniProfirente as well as the DWS RiesterRente premium it is therefore questionable whether the redeployment activities of these products is a wealth management in the interests of the clients or to a pure risk management for the protection of the legal guarantee in the interest of the fund company. The management seems only designed not to jeopardise the guarantee at the end of the term. Good investment products, within the meaning of the investor should characterized according to the teachings of the modern financial market theory by two principles: diversification of the system to various asset classes and a reduction of Conflicts of interest between the asset manager (Riester provider) and customers.