Borrowers also have a right of withdrawal for real estate loans. For all types of consumer credit there is a right of withdrawal. Anyone stuck in an expensive building loan should have their loan agreement checked for errors in the termination instructions.
The Revokation Joker Pool. The right of withdrawal for real estate loans, which is actually intended to serve consumer protection and from which the 14-day right of revocation results, is gradually turning into a gap. If the wording is even a single word wrong, it is possible to terminate the treaty text years later. As more and more master builders withdraw the withdrawal joke, consumer centers, lawyers and tribunals have much to do – and use the “black Peter”.
Since then loan agreements must include a notice of termination. 355 BGB determines in which way information about the revocation option is to be issued. But as soon as own recipes are used, even to raise the legal German to the consumer level, the banks become vulnerable. If the revocation instructions deviate only slightly from the depiction, then it is irrelevant.
Thus, the most frequently cited court can be summarized as a faulty cancellation instruction. In case of ineffectiveness of the contradiction instruction the right of revocation does not expire after 14 days. This has the consequence: The client comes out without prepayment from the current building loan. Below are just a few exemplary judgments that deal with false revocation instructions: In contrast to the opinion of the district court, the resignation of the plaintiff in 2010, however, did not come about because of a limitation period, because the withdrawal period for lack of proper instruction of the applicant after the 355, 358 BGB has not come into force.
The resignation was pronounced in due time because the two-week resignation period (355 para. 1 sentence 2 BGB old version) has not come into force due to a lack of proper resignation instructions. It contains the note that the opposition period “begins at the earliest with the receipt of this instruction”. This information is not sufficient as it does not clearly inform the consumer about the start of the withdrawal period.
The use of the term “at the earliest” does not allow the consumer to easily grasp the beginning of the time limit (BGH, judgment of 17.01.2013, III marg. 10 mwN, juris). Bundesgerichtshof17.01. 13III UR 145/12 At that time, however, the opposition period had not elapsed. According to 355 (2) sentence 1 BGB (old version), the period begins when the consumer has received a clearly structured statement of his right of withdrawal with reference to the beginning of the period.
The right of revocation of the defendant therefore did not cease to exist six months after the conclusion of the contract in accordance with section 355 (3) sentence 1 p. 3 BGB (old version). The consumer protection intended with the right of withdrawal requires a comprehensive, unmistakable and clear instruction for the consumer. The right of revocation should not only be known to the consumer, but also exercised.
Therefore, the time of the beginning of the opposition period according to § 355 Abs. 2 S. 1 BGB must be clearly communicated to him. Such a sufficient guide does not exist here. The right of withdrawal of the defendant therefore did not expire after six months after conclusion of the contract (at the Saxony-Anhalt, deadline for the conclusion of the contract) according to § 355 Abs. 3 S. 1 BGB.
The revocation instructions contained in the contract document did not meet the requirements of 355 (2) sentence 1 BGB a. F. It has been communicated that the deadline for revocation shall be no earlier than receipt of this revocation notice. According to the rulings of the Federal Supreme Court, such information is inadequate because it does not clearly inform consumers about the start of the withdrawal period.
The use of the term “earliest” does not allow the consumer to easily grasp the beginning of the period. It can only be concluded that the opposition period begins “now or later”, ie that the beginning of the expiry of the opposition period may depend on further conditions.
More than two-thirds of the respondents did not comply with the applicable law due to incorrect revocation instructions. Over 10,000 home loan and savings contracts were taken care of by the consumer centers in Hamburg, Saxony and Bremen. Thousands more contracts or borrowers expect to check the block instruction. Thus, in 2002, the Federal Court of Justice criticized the wording of the BGB Information Regulation “The time limit begins at the earliest ….” as too indefinite.
Not to anger the consumers, but to make their daily bread easier. The construction industry considers the consumer protection led by the revocation Joker long ad absurdum. Because the actual intention of the right of withdrawal to protect the borrower from hasty decisions and thus from himself, to some extent over other concerns in the background occurs: to get a cheaper building loan without any financial expense.
The cancellation policy and thus the termination right have a very serious history. If at first you were sure that the loan was good, you may find a cheaper deal later, or consider hesitating for a few more years. If you decide against a construction cost financing, a timely withdrawal is sufficient to divorce the loan.
This is relatively simple and clearly regulated in § 355 BGB: He will inform BuyNer that he has withdrawn his previous letter of intent. This declaration of cancellation must be clearly stated in the letter. More and more consumers take advantage of the fact that a resignation is possible for free and is therefore virtually “impunity”.
terminate the construction loan
He jumps on the train of the cancellation joker. The resignation due to a defective instruction is the means of decision to dissolve old contracts. If the interest rate had increased in the subsequent period, hardly anyone would have thought to terminate the construction loan on this way. Only less than one percentage point of the borrower has exercised the right of withdrawal or even complained about the termination policy.
On the one hand, it is unlikely that a single company will be able to refine the model of the official blocking order. The insurer considers this with the right of withdrawal for construction loans. The fact that the recall instruction is now being diligently turned into a rope, always in search of the slightest departure from the “norm”, also becomes more substantiated with consumer interests. In addition, action by consumer centers is at odds with a core requirement that they have been emphasizing for years: contracts and commodity information that are traceable, consumer-friendly and without legal rhetoric.
Many banks have tried this in the withdrawal instruction, the versatile monsters defused, it converted into a reader-friendly target format and now burns his hands.