Mortgage clauses: the Supreme Court reopens IRPH and how we help you claim

If you hold a mortgage loan, it is worth reviewing the deed carefully: many contracts contain clauses that have given rise to undue payments over the years. In November 2025 the Supreme Court reopened the debate on IRPH, which affects a very large number of mortgage holders. We set out what has changed, the legal framework and how we help you claim.

The transparency review: the key to any claim

The clauses of a mortgage loan with consumers are subject to a double filter. The incorporation control (Articles 5 and 7 of Law 7/1998 on General Contracting Conditions) requires the clause to be legible and comprehensible. The substantive transparency review (Articles 80 and 82 of the Consolidated Consumer Protection Act, and Directive 93/13/EEC) goes further: it requires that the consumer could understand the economic and legal burden they were assuming. Where a clause fails this review and causes an imbalance to the consumer's detriment, it is unfair and therefore void.

What the Supreme Court has said about IRPH

In its judgments of 11 November 2025 (STS 1590/2025 and 1591/2025), the Full bench of the First Chamber —following the Court of Justice of the European Union (cases C-265/22 and C-300/23)— confirmed that IRPH cannot be declared unfair automatically or across the board: each mortgage must be assessed individually. The decisive issue is transparency: whether the lender provided comprehensible information about how the index is calculated, its track record, and the appropriateness of applying the negative spread suggested by the Bank of Spain circular. This case law builds on the CJEU judgment of 3 March 2020 (case C-125/18, Gómez del Moral), which already allowed a transparency review of IRPH. Where that information was absent, there is room to claim.

Not only IRPH: other reviewable clauses

IRPH is the new development, but not the only clause with scope to claim. In many deeds we continue to identify:

• Floor clause: a minimum interest rate that prevented the borrower from benefiting from falls in Euribor. The Supreme Court annulled it for lack of transparency (judgment of 9 May 2013) and the CJEU recognised the full refund of what was charged (judgment of 21 December 2016, Gutiérrez Naranjo).
• Set-up costs: notary, registry and agency fees charged to the customer, whose allocation the Supreme Court settled in its judgments of 23 January 2019.
• Arrangement fee: the CJEU (judgment of 16 March 2023, case C-565/21) and the Supreme Court have also subjected it to a transparency review, without presuming it unfair automatically.

Have I left it too late to claim?

Probably not. The CJEU has clarified (judgments of 25 April 2024, cases C-484/21 and C-561/21) that the limitation period for the action to recover what was paid does not start to run from signing, but from the moment the consumer could become aware of the unfair nature of the clause. It is therefore worth reviewing each case before ruling it out on grounds of time.

How we help at RCM Legal

We make it simple for the client, taking on the technical complexity of the procedure ourselves:

1. We review your deed and tell you frankly whether there is a basis to claim.
2. We quantify what was overpaid.
3. We claim, first before the lender and, if it does not respond, through the courts.

Not every mortgage gives rise to a claim; that is why the first step is to examine yours. Send us your deed and we will tell you where you stand.