\n<\/p>\n
\u0130stanbul’da t\u00fcketici hakem heyetine ba\u015fvuran m\u00fc\u015fteri, bir bankadan kredi kart\u0131 al\u0131rken “aidats\u0131z kart se\u00e7ene\u011fi sunulmadan” verilen kart i\u00e7in \u00f6dedi\u011fi 473 liral\u0131k aidat \u00fccretini geri ald\u0131.<\/p>\n
T\u00fcketiciler Birli\u011fi Genel Ba\u015fkan\u0131 Mahmut \u015eahin, AA muhabirine, 2014 y\u0131l\u0131na kadar bankalar\u0131n t\u00fcketicilerden kredi kart\u0131 aidat\u0131 alma hakk\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 s\u00f6yledi.<\/p>\n
Bankalar\u0131n bu \u00fccreti almalar\u0131 halinde t\u00fcketicinin itiraz hakk\u0131 bulundu\u011funu, t\u00fcketici hakem heyetine ba\u015fvurup paras\u0131n\u0131 alabildi\u011fini anlatan \u015eahin, bankalar\u0131n 2014’te \u00e7\u0131kan kanunla bu \u00fccreti alma hakk\u0131 kazand\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 dile getirdi.<\/p>\n
Kanunda bu hakk\u0131n kazan\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in bankalara baz\u0131 \u015fartlar sunuldu\u011funu belirten \u015eahin, “Dendi ki t\u00fcketiciye iki alternatif sunacaks\u0131n\u0131z; birisi aidatl\u0131 kredi kart\u0131, di\u011feri aidats\u0131z kredi kart\u0131. Aidatl\u0131 kredi kart\u0131 dedi\u011fimiz \u015fu an taksit yap\u0131labilen, bankalar taraf\u0131ndan \u00e7e\u015fitli hediyelerin verildi\u011fi kredi kartlar\u0131. Bunun aidat\u0131 var ve bankalar kendi belirledikleri miktarlara g\u00f6re aidat al\u0131yor. Di\u011feri de aidats\u0131z yal\u0131n kart dedi\u011fimiz ve herhangi bir taksit imkan\u0131 olmayan, bankan\u0131n bir hediye vermedi\u011fi kredi kart\u0131. T\u00fcketici bu konuda bilgilendirilmek zorunda ve kendisi tercih etmeli yal\u0131n ya da aidatl\u0131 kart\u0131.” diye konu\u015ftu.<\/p>\n
\u015eahin, \u0130stanbul’da m\u00fc\u015fteri S.E’nin bir bankadan ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 kredi kart\u0131 i\u00e7in 473 lira aidat \u00fccreti yans\u0131t\u0131lmas\u0131 \u00fczerine bankan\u0131n m\u00fc\u015fteri hizmetlerini arad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, paran\u0131n iadesi i\u00e7in yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 giri\u015fimden sonu\u00e7 alamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, mevcut kart kendisine verilirken “aidats\u0131z kredi kart\u0131 se\u00e7ene\u011finin sunulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131” \u00f6\u011frenince aidat\u0131n iptali i\u00e7in Kartal Kaymakaml\u0131\u011f\u0131 T\u00fcketici Hakem Heyetine ba\u015fvurdu\u011funu anlatt\u0131.<\/p>\n
T\u00fcketicinin kanunen bir \u015feyi ispat etme y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na de\u011finen \u015eahin, \u015funlar\u0131 kaydetti:<\/p>\n
“Banka, t\u00fcketiciye yal\u0131n kart alternatifini sunup sunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ispat etmek zorunda. ‘Bak ben sana burada yazd\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi sundum. Sen de alt\u0131n\u0131 imzalad\u0131n. Ben yal\u0131n kart\u0131 istiyorum ya da kart istiyorum dedin’ diye ispat etmek zorunda. \u0130\u015fte bunun ilk defa bir hakem heyetinden \u00f6rnek karar\u0131 \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131. \u0130stanbul’da Kartal Kaymakaml\u0131\u011f\u0131 T\u00fcketici Hakem Heyeti, banka yal\u0131n kart alternatifini sundu\u011funu ispatlayamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in kredi kart\u0131 aidat\u0131n\u0131n iadesine karar verdi, 473 liral\u0131k uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k bedeli t\u00fcketici taraf\u0131na ge\u00e7ti.”<\/p>\n
Kredi kart\u0131 aidatlar\u0131 i\u00e7in kendilerine ayda ortalama 500 \u015fikayet geldi\u011fini belirten \u015eahin, aidats\u0131z ya da aidatl\u0131 kredi kart\u0131 se\u00e7ene\u011finin bankalarca sunulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 durumlarda aidatlar\u0131n geriye d\u00f6n\u00fck 10 sene i\u00e7in tamam\u0131n\u0131n iade edilebildi\u011fini dile getirdi.<\/p>\n
\u015eahin, \u00fccretlerin geri al\u0131nabilmesi i\u00e7in t\u00fcketicilerin hakem heyetine ba\u015fvurmas\u0131n\u0131n yeterli oldu\u011funu s\u00f6zlerine ekledi.<\/p>\n
Kartal T\u00fcketici Hakem Heyetinin karar tutana\u011f\u0131n\u0131n gerek\u00e7e b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcnde, “Banka taraf\u0131ndan t\u00fcketiciye sunulan kredi kart\u0131n\u0131n ilgili kanun gere\u011fi t\u00fcketicinin \u00fccretsiz kullan\u0131m\u0131na sunulmas\u0131 gereken bir kart olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve mevcut s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin matbu oldu\u011fu ancak t\u00fcketicinin s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin her sayfas\u0131n\u0131 okuma imkan\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin suretinin t\u00fcketiciye verilmedi\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131”ndan t\u00fcketicinin talebinin kabul\u00fcne karar verildi\u011fi belirtildi.<\/p>\n