Change repayment rate - bank now requires new documents

No, that is actually a coincidence, I am only in this forum and just saw the message in the inbox today! Was it about a similar matter there?

Yes, with an interest rate of 1.3%. And it was also not about the special repayment there, but about the monthly repayment, that is, the free reduction to 1%.

Yes, with an interest rate of 1.3%. And it was not about the special repayment there either, but about the monthly repayment, i.e. the free reduction to 1%.

Ah ok. But no, neither related nor by marriage ;) but it’s not surprising that the question concerns several people.

Hi, you have now initiated a process. By the way, the bank is granted the right by the T&Cs to indicate economic hardship. Unfortunately, by clicking, you have suggested something like that.

I find the reduction of the repayment more than legitimate and understandable for him as a customer. In our financing, we have an effective annual interest rate of 1.45 % and have waived special repayments from the beginning. In the four years of financing, we have invested approximately the same amount that we have repaid so far in various financial products with higher returns and fully benefit from the interest rate difference.

For me personally, it has three advantages:

1. Capital income
2. Possibility to repay the loan completely earlier
3. Increasing emergency fund for further loan payments

I find lowering the repayment rate more than legitimate and comprehensible for him as a customer.(...)

Honestly, I do not. If I change my repayment from currently just under 3.5% to 1%, the duration for the complete repayment increases to 70 years. Then I would be 110. A bank must reject that as unrealistic, unless the borrower is really in financial distress and needs to reduce the installment for a certain period for that reason.

Bank offers the customers an interest rate of 1,x percent with whatever repayment. Agreed in writing with him that anyone can reduce the repayment to 1%. So everything is contractually agreed. Now I don’t understand why the bank should refuse or want to construct an economic hardship. Does it have to do with being unrealistic? By the way, a term is agreed in the contract. That does not change. Contracts must be kept. Period.