The current status of construction and real estate loans. Debt rescheduling without prepayment penalty Free initial evaluation Experienced lawyers Real estate loans amount to high sums, usually in the six-digit range. At a time of falling interest rates, debt rescheduling is one of the most burning issues for all borrowers who have borrowed money to build or buy property in a time of high interest rates. The rescheduling thus serves as a proven means for better control and reduction of repayment costs. This means that another object is deposited as collateral for an existing loan contract and the loan continues on the same terms.
Credit institutions that have used this cancellation policy can not reject a contradiction. If it is brought to a declaratory action that a revocation expired is legally enforceable, the judges in the cases decided by the Federal Court usually uphold the borrower: Lite lender company then not only has to waive the early repayment penalty, but also bear the legal fees and legal costs.
The current legislation also includes the already completed property financing. Anyone who has annoyed about a higher early payment penalty, should now explore his revocation option.
Credit cancellation changed for real estate loans
“This change in legislation put consumer protection in a nutshell: Instead of protecting consumers from credit institutions, as the insurer should do, banks are protected from the long-term rights of their clients,” claims the law firm in Lite lender. What are the options for bank customers with an old credit agreement? The amendment will be put into practice during the month of February.
After three months expires the “indefinite” right of withdrawal of consumers with old property loans. From then on, no house bank will have to worry about their mistakes in the past years in real estate loans. Until then, however, bank customers can use their “unlimited” right to pay. This applies both to those customers who want to restructure their debts, as well as those who have already terminated their old loan and imposed a prepayment penalty on the house bank.
If you want to reschedule your debts, you should carefully consider your approach. Only if the house bank crosses the border and rejects a mutual agreement, the customer should be granted a right of withdrawal, possibly in court. In this case, it is necessary. Previously, he should definitely take care of a follow-up loan, “advises the law firm Instant care bank. One thing should be obvious to all customers of banks: This is one of the key requirements:
In the bank it is not good to harvest sour cherries. If necessary, customers are encouraged to worry about them. The banker merely claims that the right of withdrawal would not even exist in individual cases, even though he knows that his statement is not correct. “In recent years, the specialized lawyers for banking and financial law have been commissioned in Lite lender Clients negotiated and enforced a large number of loan repossessions with banks.
Termination of real estate loans
In the case of real estate loans, the law firm considers the change of the right of withdrawal to be questionable in several aspects (if the German federal government decides this today). Intervening in existing rights: The legislative influence on long-standing blocking rights of bank customers. 2. The new regulation is therefore not dependent on changing the legal situation only for real estate loans that were concluded after the entry into force of the law.
The alleged uncertainty is a protective cover for the client change in favor of the banks: the federal government and parliament justify the interference in the existing consumer rights with a supposed legal security gap. There was already no legal uncertainty about the right of withdrawal. Wrong instructions from bankers can reverse their consumer credits years later. Bank benefits, citizens lose:
Only the banks benefit from the bill. In other words, especially those companies that have almost regularly violated their obligation for years to provide customers with legal information on the termination of real estate loans and other consumer loans. These errors of the credit institutions alone entitle consumers to revoke credit agreements even years after their signing.
There is no need to change the law: there is no reason to interfere with the right of resignation of the bank customer. In this case, the right of withdrawal of the customer is not affected. Because each house bank was able to remedy its own errors with a blocking instruction in retrospect. Legislative amendment allegedly violates European law: The restriction of the “eternal” rights of rescission of bank customers is on shaky legal foundations. This is proposed by the relevant legislation on old right of objection in life insurance policies.