Archive 2019

Revocation of real estate loans – Attention! Not the best option

At present, the still possible revocation of real estate loans is on everyone’s lips, since mid-June this year, the so-called cancellation joker expires. The point is that numerous loan agreements in the field of mortgage lending, which were concluded between 2002 and 2010, include a faulty cancellation policy.

The loans can be revoked by the relevant borrowers

The loans can be revoked by the relevant borrowers

Therefore, the loans can be revoked by the relevant borrowers without observing a notice period or payment of a prepayment penalty. However, consumer centers are now making it clear that such a withdrawal is not always the optimal way to get low interest rates. Instead, the termination of the loan agreement may sometimes be the better option.

In particular, under the condition that the building loan has been used for at least ten years, the termination is in most cases better for the borrower than the revocation of the loan agreement, which can sometimes be quite connected with disputes and over a longer period if the credit institution does not accept the revocation.

On the other hand, anyone who has been using a real estate loan for at least ten years already has the option of terminating the contract prematurely in compliance with the statutory notice period of three months. This also applies in the event that a longer interest rate agreement has been made.

Banks may not claim a prepayment penalty

bank

It is important to know that even with such early termination, no prepayment penalty has to be paid by the banks. Thus, consumers who terminate their real estate loan in this way have the opportunity to benefit from the currently very low lending rates in this segment.

Basically, it is so that you can not say flat rate, whether the revocation of the loan agreement or the termination is the better alternative. For this reason, affected borrowers should seek advice from as competent as possible, for example, from the numerous represented consumer centers.

Resolution of the Bundestag as background

Resolution of the Bundestag as background

Background of the discussion on whether the revocation of the loan agreement or the termination is more useful, is a recent decision of the Bundestag. The latter had made it clear that credit agreements concluded between 2002 and 2010 that contain a faulty cancellation policy can only be revoked by mid-June of this year. Therefore, many borrowers are now in a hurry to be affected by such a false cancellation policy.

Thus, the Bundestag has implemented an EU directive, namely the so-called residential real estate credit directive. The basic requirement for considering either the revocation of the loan agreement or a termination is, of course, that the loan agreements were concluded on less favorable interest terms than are currently available on the market.

However, when speaking of the period between 2002 and 2010, almost all mortgage loan contracts are likely to have loan rates payable at times much higher than the loan interest rates borne by mortgage lenders today.