The man made a transfer via Pix, but the amount was not sent. He contacted the bank, but the problem was not resolved. After filing the action, the financial institution returned the money to the customer.
The judge stated that the bank failed to provide the service. After all, it did not justify why the amount was not transferred, stating that it had done the procedure, and only reversed the money after the client went to court.
“Notable is the frustration of the consumer’s expectation with the service provided and the impotence to assert his right due to the defendant’s recalcitrance in fulfilling a legal duty despite having complained administratively, which characterizes the productive deviation of his working time”, said the judge.
Get the latest news delivered to your inbox
Follow us on social media networks