- Of the 1,624 transactions accepted, in most cases the debt was restructured and there were 397 payment dates
- The denials occurred due to lack of documentation or withdrawal as the main causes
The 45 financial entities adhered to the Code of Good Practice (CBP) for the viable restructuring of mortgage debts on habitual housing received in the last quarter of 2013 a total of 4,523 new applications, according to data from the Monitoring Commission. This figure exceeds the one registered during the first year of operation (between March 2012 and the same month of 2013), which was 4,385 applications. It also reveals a clear acceleration throughout 2013, since the number of requests has more than doubled compared to those registered in the first quarter (1,967).
The progressive better reception of the measures included in the CBP is explained by the improvements introduced in Law 1/2013 of May 14, which meant extending and making flexible the protection measures. For example, families with income up to three times the Public Multiple-Income Income Indicator (IPREM) were allowed to benefit from the CBP, when they previously had no income. The family unit has had to undergo a significant alteration of the economic circumstances during the last four years and its mortgage quota must exceed 50% of the net income, among other modifications.
Data referring to the new CBP indicate that of the 4,523 applications received, 2,904 (64.21%) were pending resolution at the end of 2013. During that third quarter 3,849 applications were resolved instead (some carried forward from previous quarters); 1,529 of them were denied and 1,624 were accepted. The non-submission of the corresponding documentation and the client's resignation (696 cases) were the main causes of the denial of the request.
Of the 1,624 operations carried out, in 1,227 cases (75.55% of those carried out, and 31.88% of the files processed) a viable restructuring of the outstanding debt was reached; in 397 cases (24.45% of those made and 10.31% of the files processed) the payment date was agreed and consequent debt termination, and in no case the operation ended with a debt withdrawal by of the entity in order to be able to restructure the debt in a viable way.
