Entities support amendment to bill before the Legislative Assembly
ANBC - National Association of Credit Bureaus, Faciap - Federation of Commercial and Business Associations of Paraná and ACP - Commercial Association of Paraná express their support for the amendment to Bill 659/2024, authored by Deputy Fábio Oliveira, which provides for an adjustment to the deadline for including debts in credit protection databases.
Law 22.130, of 2024, although it is a consolidation of Consumer Protection Laws in the state of Paraná, with more than 320 articles, innovated by determining that consumers can only be denied credit 30 days after the debt is due. We reiterate that this provision was not previously included in the state's legal system.
That said, we support keeping the amendment tabled by deputy Fábio Oliveira, which adjusts the deadline to 5 working days for consumers to be informed about the registration of debts in default registers, because we understand that it is necessary to protect good consumers, avoid over-indebtedness and keep credit healthy.
The entities believe that the 30-day deadline does not benefit occasional defaulters, but only increases the time frame for the actions of persistent defaulters and fraudsters, since, during this period, the market will not have up-to-date information on these consumers. It should be noted that setting a 30-day deadline for notations of default in credit protection agencies will not make debts cease to exist, nor will it help consumers regain control of their financial situation, but it will only prevent the exposure of a factual situation, which could harm the economy.
Such a deadline ends up hindering access to credit for consumers and companies, and also increases the risks of granting credit, given that such a measure will generate an asymmetry of information that will manipulate the market's view, increasing the likelihood of inaccurate credit risk analysis and, consequently, over-indebtedness and high default rates - the high risks of which make credit offers more expensive and further restrict access to new concessions.
The arguments are based on the premise of a more agile, efficient and fair credit system, both for consumers and companies, combating defaults more effectively.
Among the arguments are:
1. UnconstitutionalityThe STF, in ADI 5224, recognized the formal unconstitutionality of an article in a São Paulo state law that set a 20-day deadline for inclusion in credit protection databases. The Court's understanding is that the provision of a hypothesis suspending the effects of the maturity of the debt, providing for the time of payment and the effects of default, intervenes in legislation on civil and commercial law, a matter reserved for the Federal Government (CF, art. 22, I).
2. Protecting good consumersAdjusting the denial period to 5 working days protects consumers with a good credit history, making the protection system more efficient and avoiding the risk of granting credit to defaulters. If non-payment of the debt is a mere oversight on the part of the consumer, the sooner they are informed by the databases, the lower the additional charges to the creditor. Or, if the consumer is unable to pay, regardless of the reason, the sooner they seek renegotiation, the better.
3. Prevention of persistent defaulters, fraudsters and over-indebtednessThe deadline doesn't benefit occasional defaulters, it just increases the time period for persistent defaulters and fraudsters to operate, since during the 30-day period the market won't have up-to-date information on this consumer. During this period, the consumer could take on new debts, which could lead to a situation of over-indebtedness.
4. Greater efficiency in the credit protection systemUp-to-date information is essential for creditors to make accurate decisions and mitigate default risks. The lack of recent data will lead to greater exposure to risk, negatively affecting the granting of credit, with the consequence of an increase in interest rates, and the financial health of the market, with consumers who are in compliance ending up bearing the losses caused by those who do not honor their financial commitments.
5. Interference in the creditor-consumer relationshipBy setting a deadline for the consumer to be included in credit protection databases, there is interference in the private commercial relationship between consumer and supplier and disrespect for pacta sunt servanda.
6. Creditor's rightsThe deadline is contrary to the provisions of article 394 of Law 10.406/2022 (Civil Code), which states that once an obligation has fallen due and is not fulfilled in the time, place and manner agreed, the debtor will immediately be legally in default. The registration of the debtor's name in the credit protection agencies, as is well known, is the creditor's prerogative and constitutes an action aimed at promoting the legitimate pursuit of recovery of the amounts owed to the creditor, once they have not been paid in a timely manner.
