Unfortunately, I have to come back to this again. Regardless of whether I open my own calculation or the bank opens theirs for a positive credit decision, child benefit must be included as income!
I do an income/expense calculation and see what is left at the end. If I am honest with myself, I calculate the expenses very precisely, preferably a bit more rather than less. If it ends up at zero, I should question whether the project makes sense, especially if I have not built in any reserves. Why I should not add child benefit income on the credit side is completely incomprehensible to me.
Parental allowance is now considered sustainable income by most banks. If parental allowance lasts longer than 3 months, it is not even necessary to prove that the activity will be resumed afterwards or whether this activity is even available. If necessary, proof may be required that the employment relationship will be resumed. At least the last statement before the parental allowance must always be submitted, as well as the notice itself.
But I also always find it funny. The consumer goes to their main bank and additionally to a nearby bank and receives a negative credit decision from both. Regardless of the reason, if they go to a financing broker, suddenly numerous banks open up that easily accompany the project. So Sparkasse X as the main bank can reject it, but another Sparkasse branch welcomes the consumer with open arms. Whether it is
- the recognition of the parental allowance
- whether at least 20% equity is required
- a fixed-term employment contract exists
- one of the spouses has a negative Schufa, but both spouses must necessarily become borrowers due to the disbursement criteria at the bank
- it concerns a private hereditary building right
and so on and so forth. One bank decides one way, another another way. We also cannot and must not judge this generally; for one consumer it makes sense, for another it does not. Looking individually and questioning often yields quite different pictures than those that first present themselves here. Moreover, some consumers have made up their minds; we can point out and show what we want, but they go their own way. Of course, we should not omit this because in the end it also leads some to come to their senses or to assistance so that they modify or at least make sure that the calculation, especially in the costs of a new building, works out. Ultimately, however, the consumer is also responsible for themselves. All the better that there are such forums where people can get information and help.
I also want to be allowed to be honest here; I prefer to take the consumer who is really in a tight spot and wants to go through with their thing by the hand and accompany them, at least offer it, so that it does not get even tighter or they become overwhelmed.
This should not be advertising but rather my train of thought that no consumer requesting something here wants a promise for their financing project, but rather that this can only succeed if the personal circumstances are individually checked and questioned. Also, no one should think that the banks finance everything and everyone; due to the Residential Mortgage Credit Directive of March 21, 2016, everything has become stricter, more difficult, and must be proven sustainably.
In my view, it is also important that misinformation such as that expressed here, for example about child benefit, does not become more correct by writing more that child benefit is not sustainable income.
Take consumers seriously, question, individually examine what they mean, on what basis they justify their assumptions (here, for example, often the construction costs), and then do not generally say too expensive, not possible, or we had to pay twice as much. We can discuss this generally here, but in the end, no one is helped if you want to judge something without knowing the consumer and having seen and read the numbers available to them.