This needs to be further investigated. Article 16.1 states that full or partial repayment may be made at any time and, if so, the debtor is entitled to a reduction in the total cost of the loan “consisting of interest and costs for the remaining term of the contract”. Article 16.2 then stipulates that the creditor is entitled to reasonable compensation for his costs related to early repayment, but this compensation may not exceed 1% of the amount reimbursed by delay or, if less than one year before the end of the contract, 0.5% of the amount reimbursed by delay. It is also provided that the creditor exceptionally demands higher compensation if he can prove a higher damage. The use of smartphones, tablets, computers, headsets and other devices not only for product research, but also for the conclusion of loan agreements reflects the reality that exceeded the expectations that the legislator took into account when agreeing on the CCD. When it comes to pre-contractual information, it is important to focus on reducing the number of pre-contractual documents that banks have to provide to consumers anyway. This approach has not proved useful for consumers and, for this reason, the requirements for the provision of pre-contractual information and European standard information for consumer credit do not contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the Directive. In the perspective of digitization, it is difficult to present the required information in a clear and complete way on mobile devices. Another problem here is that CCD is much less prescriptive for copying documents than the CCA. While CCD`s view, a copy of a credit agreement must be provided to the debtor, the complex requirements for executed and non-performed contracts and the different forms of termination that must be given in different cases are not a feature of CCD. Again, the decision tree and the right decisions will be crucial. We can see how important the decision tree will be in terms of choosing between the allocation of PCI and the allocation of SECCI. BERR proposes to improve this by allowing the allocation of a SECCI instead of an ICP for agreements that fall outside ccD`s scope but would otherwise require an ICH under the CCA.
However, the decision may not be as easy as CCD itself is much more flexible than the CCA in its requirements to document the agreement itself. For example, as noted above, CCD does not distinguish between debtor-creditor-supplier and debtor-creditor agreements, nor does it provide for agreements of several categories that must be documented separately in the same agreement. It is therefore quite possible that, for example, an agreement that includes in terms of CCA an ordinary debtor-creditor loan but with financed payment protection insurance (a debtor-creditor-supplier loan) could very easily be documented as a single agreement under the DCC, but would still require the tendentious design of such a document according to the CCA if the amount was greater than €75,000 or the agreement of another reason by outside CCD. So far so good. However, there is a problem. The BERR considers that its proposal is in line with Article 16(1) of the DCC. In their view, Article 16(2) of the ccD, which deals on a first-sight basis with compensation in the event of early winding-up, is not relevant to existing United Kingdom legislation. .