Almost all loan agreements can be revoked - European Court of Justice

In my opinion, no one was harmed by the diesel, except later the resale value or if you really are no longer allowed to drive into the cities.

The fact that fuel consumption was always higher than stated was known by everyone and nobody cared until then.

Here with the banks, no damage has occurred at first either, and I would find it okay if one can then revoke. However, I would not find it okay if you then did not have to pay any interest to the bank; I would find that unfair.

Otherwise, I would exploit my right there to the fullest....
That the KFW now gives 18,000 instead of 5,000 euros subsidy is also irrelevant to the bank... it’s said there too... that’s how it is... tough luck.

Otherwise, I would exhaust my rights there to the last bit .... That the KFW now gives 18,000 instead of 5,000 euros in grants doesn't matter to the bank either ... They just say ... that's how it is ... tough luck

My God, examples are being brought up. The funding rules of the KFW have simply changed and now there is more grant money. It’s also not a comparable situation at all.

Back to the main topic. Has anyone ever written to/called their bank? If so, what were the reactions?

KfW loans are not affected by this. Lawyers have already clarified this sufficiently.

Otherwise, regarding banks, one should remain fair towards them. Otherwise, it just won't work. The banks have packaged the objection declaration so complicatedly that no layperson can make proper use of it. Fairness is something else. So why shouldn't I use it completely legally, just as I use a return policy for products I ordered but that do not fit?

For some, it involves a lot of money, and the banks are not coming out empty-handed either (especially since they are insured against this). The banks will be allowed to keep a large part of the interest. Essentially, a usage fee. Only the interest they have received "too much" (because, for example, the interest rate has fallen in the meantime) would have to be returned. They have therefore not really incurred heavy losses but are receiving what they would have gotten at different points in time.

A very clear procedure for those who want to use the ruling: Have it checked whether you are affected. Then obtain buyout offers. Then ask the bank, and if they do not provide a counteroffer (which they are free to do), then clearly object.
Sorry, but with these amounts, my solidarity with the banks is zero.

KfW loans are not affected by this. Lawyers have already clarified that more than enough.

Otherwise, regarding banks, one should remain fair towards them. Otherwise, it just won't work. The banks have packaged the objection declaration so complicatedly that no layperson can reasonably make sense of it. Fairness is something else. So why shouldn't I legally use it, just as I use a return policy for products I ordered but don't fit.

For some, it's about a lot of money, and the banks don't come out empty-handed either (especially since they are insured against something like this). The banks will be allowed to keep a large portion of the interest. Basically, a usage fee. Only what interest they received "too much" (because the interest rate, for example, fell in the meantime) they would have to return. So they haven't actually incurred heavy losses but get what they would have gotten at different points in time.

Very clear approach for those who want to use the judgment: Have it checked if you are affected. Then get payoff offers. Then inquire at the bank, and if they don't provide a counteroffer (which is up to them), then clearly object. Sorry, but with these amounts, my solidarity with the banks is zero.

Your statement is nonsense. There is the right of withdrawal. And it is not fair to then seek an exit. Or would it be fair if the bank constantly checked creditworthiness to exit supposedly too favorable interest rates?

Every contract states that financial changes must be disclosed. Normally, one should just start checking from September and call the loans due.^^

The banks have packaged the objection declaration so complicatedly that no layperson can reasonably make sense of it. Fairness is something else. So why shouldn’t I legally use it, just as I use a right of return for products I ordered but that don’t fit.

Come on, you don’t have to make yourself look more stupid than you are. Everyone knows that contracts can be revoked within 14 days. Usually, you are also verbally informed of this when signing the contract. And I don’t know all formulations, but in most cases, the revocation already clearly states - revocation - 14 days - so even a layperson can understand that. By the logic of “complicated formulations,” no contract from a mobile phone contract to a house purchase would have to be fair.

For some, it’s about a lot of money, and the banks don’t exactly take it on the chin either (especially since they are insured against something like that). The banks will be allowed to keep most of the interest. Basically a usage fee. Only what they received in interest “too much” (because, for example, the interest rate has fallen in the meantime), they would have to return. So they have not really suffered heavy losses but get what they would have gotten at the various points in time.

What are the banks supposed to be insured against?
And by the way, your argument about them not taking a hit is also incorrect.
The bank lends you money for 15 years. You pay interest x%. The bank obtains the money from the capital market at interest y% for 15 years.
Now you sue to get out of it after 5 years. Do you think the capital market cares? The bank still has to pay interest y% for another 10 years.

It’s very simplified now, but it’s just nonsense that hardly any damage occurs to a bank.