Bank demands an appraiser, however financing is approved

Why did you choose this bank? There must be a reason, right?

Well. I think everyone can answer this question: best offer, possibly also an individual offer, and a reasonable advisor. So everything fits so far.
What is bitter is that the bank, at the very moment when the loan agreement is expected, still makes this additional demand. Presumably at the very moment when the date for signing the purchase/construction contract is about to be set. Moreover, the TE and the advisor had apparently already asked in advance whether an appraisal was needed, and the answer was no.

I myself, as a bank employee, find this poor style. In hindsight, when the customer basically can no longer get out due to timing, to come up with additional demands and costs.
However, I also know, of course, that sometimes banks have directives from the board that are announced on day X and must then be strictly observed from day X onwards.

The only option for the TE would be to postpone the signing of the construction contract and look for a new bank again. Possibly go through a financial broker. They can very quickly filter out a new financing partner.

f-pNo describes very fittingly why we chose this bank. Everything fit perfectly and the interest rates are great as well. Well, the bank has now conceded and the appraiser will be paid half by us and half by the bank. For time reasons, we cannot take the loan elsewhere, but if everything goes smoothly and quickly now, we can live with that.

f-pNo describes very well why we chose this bank. Everything fit perfectly and the interest rates are great too. Well, the bank has now given in and the appraiser will be paid half by us and half by the bank. For time reasons, we cannot take the loan elsewhere, but if everything now goes smoothly and quickly, we can live with that.

at least!

Confused I am...

Either it is legal (and you have to pay the fee yourself) or it is not legal and the bank covers the costs.

This half-and-half principle seems absolutely dubious to me. And even the best condition is still too expensive for me.

And time pressure has always been a bad advisor, no matter at which stage.

I am confused...

Either it is lawful (and you have to pay the fee yourself) or it is not lawful and the bank covers the costs.

Well - you don't know what else is going on behind the scenes.

Did the advisor stand up for his clients?
Did the advisor perhaps document anywhere that he inquired about the valuation report and informed the clients that none was necessary?
Did a neutral audit office (e.g. compliance) see/check the complaint and make a recommendation regarding possible reputational damage or potential legal risks?
Did the threat to turn to another bank bring insight (a deal with partial fee coverage is better than no deal)?
Was it understood that this is not necessarily how to start a long-term customer relationship?
Is it possible that an employee of the bank is a "silent reader" here and was able to draw conclusions and give a hint regarding reputation? <-- although - since the original poster did not provide a place of residence, rather unlikely
Perhaps the bank also realized that it made a mistake and is now trying to save face by "courteously" covering half of the fees. Half the fee is better than the whole fee and face is saved.

There can be many reasons why they still accommodated the customer. Possibly it is also a combination of the reasons mentioned above. Nobody knows for sure.

Nice that the original poster still reached an acceptable solution.