Please use our free sample letters! I withdraw the above loan. Other loans that are not secured by mortgages may still be revoked if the cancellation policy was incorrect.
The problem for the wrong cancellation policy of the banks:
“Old contracts” from the period before the beginning of 2010 can still be terminated.
Credit institutions have been fighting a wave of customer recalls for several years now. As a result, several thousand mortgages have been converted earlier than planned. Customers were thus able to reduce their interest charges significantly at an early stage – often with partial reimbursement for the previous history. The parliamentarian wanted to end these revocation cases by setting an exclusion period:
This was a “tribute” to the credit institutions for their own legal “loopholes” in formulating an appropriate disapproval statement as a template for the institutions. Ultimately, the parliamentarian had led to massive concern and insecurity through the “earliest” pattern.
They felt compelled to write other withdrawal instructions themselves to better instruct the consumer.
If these are not provided correctly, a period of objection only expires with their recovery. This is therefore not a “false statement” about the right of withdrawal, but a disregard of other obligations. We are happy to assist you, even now, to withdraw from loans, to avoid / receive a prepayment or to recover the “drawn uses (= profits)” from the house bank.
Cheats on revocation of a construction loan
According to a decision of the Federal Court of Justice, many loan agreements of the savings bank are deficient and can be canceled. Reason: There is no important mandatory entry. Now the savings banks are striving for improvements – but with questionable intentions. Consumers should be attentive, the community recommends the revocation. The decision of the Federal Supreme Court (Ref No. 17 ZR 434/15) dealt with the so-called mandatory information, which the bank must provide to the bank customer, so that the 14-day withdrawal period can begin.
Many credit institutions had indicated in their withdrawal instructions a false disclosure obligation, namely the supervision of the company. Although this should be mandatory, it was canceled shortly before the new law came into effect in July 2010. However, the reference to supervision in the withdrawal instructions for many loan contracts from the second half of 2010, and sometimes even from 2011, is wrongly included:
The cautionary note in the withdrawal order is not per se inaccurate and therefore does not necessarily result in the invalidity or cancellation of the loan. However, if the house bank mentions (mistakenly) supervision as a duty to report, it must also state this in the loan agreement. Thus, the credit business is vulnerable and the consumer can cancel the contract with the support of the withdrawal Jokir years after the contract.
For the Scandinavians, the situation is particularly volatile: they had listed the supervision as a mandatory requirement in their model credit agreements, but they had not mentioned them in the loan agreement. Across Germany, the reverse pattern was chosen by the savings banks – in part only until the year 2010, but mostly well into the year 2011 into it.
All of these contracts have now gone up in flames, because the borrowers can withdraw with the revocation Jokir from these building financings again. If the borrower comes out of the loan by simply revoking it and uses the current low interest rates for a rescheduling, for him this means a huge profit – and a bitter damage to the house bank.
Therefore, some savings banks are now trying to optimize their situation around the Revokation Jokir with questionable strokes.
If the client withdraws his credit with reference to the BGH judgment, the savings banks point out that they have already remedied their mistake by the false loan agreements by submitting the missing details of the supervision in the account statements. In the case of an incorrect declaration of revocation in principle a so-called supplementary performance is possible.
As a result, Yernnby has the option of correcting a mistake in the loan agreement and thus eliminating the “unlimited” blocking period resulting from incorrect revocation instructions. In addition, Yernnby must expressly point out that the deadline expires with the following instruction.
We are, as I said, not the opinion that the savings banks with this argument have a possibility. Nevertheless, consumers should determine through an individual review, which procedure around the Widerrufsjooker is most advantageous for them.