And yes that analysis was pretty much all generated by the AI too…
4 Likes
Thanks for sharing!
I assume this was a bit more than a lawyer reviewing two letters. What about a learning to include a lawyer from the beginning? Would you recommend that?
Not really. TBH the initial cost for main response letter was CHF500, and the lawyer largely rewrote it with similar arguments but different tone etc. Things escalated due to me asking somewhat open ended questions around what happens if bank pushes on with termination etc, couple of calls etc. I think it could have been more constrained, or even done without a lawyer at all, though of course easy to say that now. Given the bank covered costs in end it was fine for me, but I’d probably act faster with just AI support in any future case and then get them involved if needed (risk there that you say something that weakens case).
The main things that lawyer brought was:
- human reassurance that had solid case, though actually here they were fairly typically cautious
- refocussing the response on a demand that bank provide their legal justification vs the legal arguments I had built with AI
- additional threat to serve for the two points below (AI came up with first but lawyer second). No idea how much either of these had, but fact we made the threat to activate these which probably lent legal credibility
What I can say is the Ombudsman was excellent - very helpful, called me (in English) within few hours of filing the case online to give some feedback, which while informal was basically that they didn’t see the bank was ‘correct’.
-
Art. 25 DSG (Datenschutzgesetz / Federal Act on Data Protection) — right of access. Any person can require any controller processing their personal data to disclose what data is being processed, the purpose, the source, recipients, retention period, and the logic of any automated decision-making. In your context: it would have forced Raiffeisen to hand over their internal file on you — including the internal notes, emails, risk-review memos and decision rationale around the termination. If the “GBP audit” theory was correct, this would have surfaced it in writing.
-
Art. 400 OR (Obligationenrecht / Code of Obligations) — Rechenschaftsablage — the mandatary’s duty of accounting. Under Swiss law, a bank is a mandatary (Beauftragter) of its customer, and the customer has a right to a full account of the mandatary’s activities on their behalf and to the surrender of everything received in the performance of the mandate. In banking disputes this is the standard route to obtain internal documents relating to how the bank handled a specific matter — broader than DSG since it covers documents about the relationship as such, not just personal data narrowly defined.
Practical effect: together they would have compelled the bank to produce, in writing, the internal record of why the termination was decided — which would either have revealed grounds they hadn’t stated (weakening their position if those grounds didn’t hold up), or confirmed no proper grounds existed at all (which is what your written correspondence already strongly suggested). Neither was ever formally deployed — you held them as a reserved right in the 14 July letter and then explicitly stood them down in the 23 July closing letter to avoid parallel channels with the ombudsman’s mediation. But the reservation alone was pointed enough to matter; a bank’s Rechtsdienst reading “we reserve DSG Art. 25 and OR Art. 400” knows exactly what’s being threatened.
1 Like
BTW again the points at end about Art 25/400 are again AI generated - they broadly align with what lawyer told me but obviously I can’t say they are fully accurate.
Congrats on successfully handling the situation!
I would personally say that the biggest thing a lawyer adds is their letterhead and signature, signaling to the bank that the client is being serious and that proper pathways to escalation are likely to be enacted.
You seem to have managed this brilliantly.
8 Likes
In this case the lawyer said they didn’t / couldn’t send the letter from their firm, so this all came from us as individuals. I’m not clear why and this surprised / slightly annoyed me, but didn’t matter in end - though again a point to check if/when engaging one (hopefully won’t ever have the need)
2 Likes
Maybe the law firm has a mortgage/financing with the same bank? 
Absolutely.
You more than likely could have done without the Ombudsman too, by just sending registered mail disputing their legal grounds for termination. And then doing …nothing.
They would have initiated debt collection (poursuite/Betreibung), you dispute it. And then they’d have to go to court. Chances are, their legal team - or a an external lawyer - would have called them out on their nonsense (internally) before filing and then quietly drop it. Especially if they had to escalate to group level.
Then again, I admit to being a keyboard warrior who’s never had a mortgage or six-figure debt in his life. Hence not sure if I would have had the balls to do (almost) nothing, do it all on my own and risk the (IMO slim) chances of getting caught and losing somewhere in the process.
When you say written conversations, do you mean by email, or registered letters?
I assume at least the two lawyer-reviewed letters were by snail mail?
This is phenomenal!
Maybe write them that you wonder if 1 month worth of interest is worth it not publishing to 20 Minutes or Blick… or if they maybe want to upgrade that to 1y or so.
I wonder why these things never happen to me 
. I’d milk the bank - in Swiss fashion - as if it was a cow 
.
Trust me I would have much preferred to not have had it happen - even for a year of interest. It was quite stressful and time consuming.
9 Likes
“When you say written conversations, do you mean by email, or registered letters?
I assume at least the two lawyer-reviewed letters were by snail mail?”
Everything went via registered snail mail with wet signatures. I insisted on this, and actively refused to discuss by phone or email, even when bank finally did try to contact me this way. This was good as it forced them to be accountable in end.
1 Like
This is quite true and as you say likely they would have backed off in end, however:
- It would have dragged out the stressful situation to play legal chicken with them by many months
- I would have not got a proper withdrawal, recovered accounts, compensation etc
- Most seriously they had a legal claim over property, which they could have tried to enact to recover debt. Again that wouldn’t have been valid but I really didn’t want it to escalate in that way even if law was on our side
3 Likes
I think you did a great job! I can understand how much stress you went through and how much time you had to spend for something you never asked for.
Thank you for posting all of that, it is an extremely usefull feedback from you, should some of us face the same bulls****t in the future.
Why do you think the bank wanted to terminate the mortgage? Was the deal to bad? Do they have problems? I still cannot understand how such a massive thing could happen.
Our favorite banker? @Cortana
1 Like
I’m glad it worked out 
It’s not that easy. As soon as a legal dispute seems likely, it’s quite common for DSG requests to no longer be answered without further ado. The DSG also allows for some exceptions, which are defined directly in the next article, in Art. 26 DSG. One example:
Art26. DSG 1: The controller may refuse to provide information, or restrict or delay the provision of information if: (..) this is required to safeguard overriding third-party interests
3 Likes
While this is absolutely true - after all, it’s what the Schuldbrief is there for - the practical process of this is very, very difficult. The right to ones home is quite a high legal good and considering you probably have a stable income, assets, etc. they’d have a really troublesome, costly and negative-PR affiliated legal process looking their way.
My dad also is like this, he believes that: “you never really own the house in Switzerland, it’s always the banks property”… The bank’s business model isn’t to do forced foreclosures, it’s earning interest payments - they likely would’ve given you a better out, in this fictional scenario.
All in all, I still find it questionable from them to do this. To me it sounds like they wanted to “try” to free up your rather small mortgage at a very low interest… as it probably costs them more to maintain it that it gives them back in profit - however, that’s just called business… they signed you, they keep you and I am thankful you were able to sort this out.
(I’d still try to raise the compensation in terms of gifted interest 
, this could be a great 20 Min article with a lot of backlash for them)
This smells like unsolicited action of a single smart-ass in the bank… you know, why not try? It’s like these mobile plan calls, where they give you a credulously expensive offer… if it works, it works, right?
Very glad you achieved this result. Goes to show how even big institutions can be fundamentaly wrong.
A small question, why do people think that if you have a low mortgage signed few years back the bank is not making money at the moment?
When you took your mortgage X years ago, let’s say you signed a fixed 15 years mortgage at 1%, you paid hefty premium compared to what the interest rate was at that time. I remember the variable was 0.1 or even negative at some points.
The bank loaned you money at market rate for the time and it is their job to insure themselves to the future, most likely the bonds and retail savings interest given or bought at the time more than cover it the higher interest environment today.
I mean UBS made USD 2.8 billion for Q2 2026 NET PROFIT
So it’s just another example of how banks try to fleece rational folks who paid HEFTY premium few years back to have a financial stability in the lives.
1 Like
Not even, we can bet that the bank is making money on the mortgage alone - the bank typically would have refinanced / hedged the mortgage at the time by entering a back-to-back 10Y Interest Rate Swap with a market counterparty, on which they would receive periodic payments based on a market / flexible rate, against fixed payments that they basically pass on from the client (with a healthy spread in between).
Great outcome!
2 Likes
I think it’s impossible to say with certainty but all the signs and feedback I had was it related to us making GBP transfers of significant sums. This then involved them in having to do money laundrying audits, which they didn’t like effort / cost of. So this triggered them to do some sort of faulty house clearing where they thought they could just get rid of us / future risk or effort.
The termination letter came from person who dealt with these issues, and I interacted with over the checks, and they were a pain on this. The fact we got a verbal hint on one call also lends credibility.
I doubt if they did any assessment of the mortgage profit / risk, and certainly not of the legal justification for terminating this. They just assumed they could get rid of us off the back of the (valid) right to terminate bank accounts at their discretion.
Then when we challenged it they probably started a frantic internal search to try and come up with some sort of justification, then blocked in hope we’d go away. Then when that become clear wasn’t going to happen they finally caved in. The person who triggered all this was out on extended leave so they will return to some pretty difficult conversations.
Anyway a good lesson that they can be challenged. I’d repeat again that if you have issues the Ombudsman route is low effort /cost and useful leverage as I doubt banks like to have many judgements go against them, even if just advisory.
7 Likes
Where’s the overriding third-party interest though?
Bank provides mortgage - bank cancels mortgage.
What third party is involved into it, and how?
1 Like