By means of contrast, the Mortgage Credit Directive as elaborated by EBA shows a borrower-focused test.
In specific, the directive clearly states that the creditworthiness test cannot depend predominantly from the known proven fact that the worthiness of this home surpasses the total amount of the credit or even the presumption that the house will rise in value, unless the goal of the credit contract would be to build or renovate the house. Footnote 44 In addition, when creating the judgement concerning the creditworthiness, the creditor “should make reasonable allowances for committed as well as other non-discretionary expenses for instance the customers’ actual obligations, including substantiation that is appropriate consideration associated with cost of living of the customer” (European Banking Authority 2015b, guideline 5.1). What’s much more, 
the creditor should also “make wise allowances for prospective negative situations as time goes on, including as an example, a lower earnings in your your your retirement; a rise in benchmark rates of interest when it comes to adjustable rate mortgages; negative amortisation; balloon re re payments, or deferred re re payments of principal or interest” (European Banking Authority 2015b, guideline 6.1).
The creditor can decide on the consumer’s credit application after having made a judgement about the consumer’s creditworthiness.
Based on the CJEU, Article 8 regarding the customer Credit Directive “aims to create creditors accountable also to avoid loans being awarded to customers who aren’t creditworthy.” Footnote 45 nevertheless, this supply will not deal with the problem of just exactly what the creditor must do in case there is the outcome that is negative of creditworthiness test. At the moment, the solutions used in the nationwide degree vary over the EU. Though some Member States, such as for instance Belgium, Footnote 46 Germany, Footnote 47 plus the Netherlands, Footnote 48 have actually introduced an explicit statutory prohibition on giving credit when this occurs, other Member States, including the UK, have never gone that far in your community of unsecured credit. Moreover, in certain known Member States, notably Bulgaria, Footnote 49 Poland, Footnote 50 Greece (Livada 2016), and Italy (Cerini 2016), the matter under consideration has apparently perhaps maybe not been addressed at all.
Even though the credit rating Directive will not preclude Member States from adopting stricter guidelines in the event of the negative upshot of the consumer’s creditworthiness test (such as for example a responsibility to alert or a responsibility to reject credit), Footnote 51 the obligation that is only EU legislation which presently rests upon the creditor when this occurs is a responsibility to deliver the buyer with “adequate explanations” in good time before signing the credit contract. Footnote 52 Such explanations should “place the buyer in a posture allowing him to evaluate perhaps the proposed credit contract is adapted to their requirements and also to their financial predicament.” Footnote 53 It is dubious, but, perhaps the responsibility to offer sufficient explanations alone can efficiently avoid customer detriment in increasingly digital high-cost credit areas in which the consumers’ capacity to make logical borrowing choices can be seriously reduced by behavioural biases.
By comparison with all the credit rating Directive, the Mortgage Credit Directive explicitly obliges the creditor to refuse giving credit to your customer in the event of the negative outcome of the creditworthiness test. This responsibility follows through the provision that is positively formulated of directive under which “the creditor only helps make the credit open to the customer where in fact the results of the creditworthiness assessment shows that the responsibilities caused by the credit contract could be met in the way needed under that contract.” Footnote 54