Funding confirmation or how to spend more money...

I understand that a guarantee is a risk for the bank and that is undisputed. What I cannot comprehend, however, is what Heinz von Heiden wants with a smaller five-figure amount as a guarantee? In the event of the worst case, nothing can be done with that, right? I would understand if it concerned the total house sum, but it does not.

Yes; it’s quite simple. You yourself said

over 20% of the sum

. That is more than enough for Heinz von Heiden to completely shift the risk onto you as the builder. Heinz von Heiden will never provide services that haven’t already been paid for at that amount.

If you stop paying after half of the installments for whatever reason, Heinz von Heiden is off the hook. They have the bank guarantee.

And regarding the financial confirmation with assignment; which your bank does not want to sign; it would be similar for Heinz von Heiden. Delivery has been made, so the bank has to pay.

In both cases, it is somewhat difficult to get Heinz von Heiden to use money for defect remediation (legally they have to; but it often takes time) if the money has already been paid.

Have you received a completion guarantee or agreed on a retention from Heinz von Heiden?

We received an informal letter from the bank stating that we will get the financing of amount x. Sent the scan to the construction company, it was fine. Have you called Heinz von Heiden to ask if that is not enough?

By the way, it gets really funny when you build with Heinz von Heiden and don’t need financing because you are paying from equity.

Incidentally, the previous speakers are right. The BÜ and their costs have nothing to do with the financing or the costs incurred there. The bank also does not inform you that additional costs can arise at Heinz von Heiden if you upgrade and have special requests. That is a problem between you and Heinz von Heiden.

Wait a moment, I think you have the wrong perspective. The bank informs you about the costs associated with the loan agreement. This is already significantly more extensive than in other industries, or is the car buyer informed about the costs of insurance, or are they somehow included in the purchase price? But well, comparing apples and oranges. I basically think it’s good that it is this way.

But you complain that your bank wants fees for something that is a non-mandatory additional service.

I think it’s not yet completely clear what I am pointing out. The bank provides information; it says that there are costs associated with procedures (cadastral map, land register, building encumbrance register, etc., notary fees are presented as an approximate amount) and that they are unknown to you. These are costs outside the bank’s sphere of influence, but they are mentioned. So far so good. But at the current point in time, it looks as if precisely this non-mandatory additional service you mentioned is actually mandatory, i.e., there is no choice. Therefore, in my opinion, this must be considered part of the disclosure because it is essential; here in my case admittedly manageable, but in other cases it does not necessarily have to be so, especially with much larger amounts. And the bank can (could) very well take these costs into account in the disclosure because it knows that with a contract for work with Heinz von Heiden only this one variant counts (as I said, this is currently the factual situation. I will of course continue to pursue this) and thus it directly belongs to the loan. If there were a choice, it wouldn’t be worth mentioning here either.

Thanks anyway for the feedback.

But at the current point in time, it looks as if precisely this additional service you mentioned as non-mandatory is actually mandatory, meaning there is no choice. Thus, in my opinion, this is necessarily part of the disclosure since it is essential, now here in my case manageable, but in other cases it does not have to be so, with much higher amounts.

No, the costs for the land register, the notary, the necessary cadastral map, or building insurance are necessarily part of the financing. Without fulfilling these requirements or providing these documents, there is no financing. The BÜ is irrelevant for granting the financing or its disbursement. You have to understand this difference between necessary documents/costs and the wishes of Heinz von Heiden. Apart from that, if you do not want to understand it, it makes no difference. The bank has acted legally correctly, and you have to bite the bullet.

Whether it is a BÜ or bank confirmation or cost increase or a sack of rice falls in China, the bank does not care. It also does not matter to the bank if you still have costs for inspection by the chimney sweep or anything else. The bank informs you of possible costs within the scope of financing; this does not include a guarantee requested by YOU. It can even give you something better than a financing confirmation, namely a loan agreement. With that, you have the best financing proof you can imagine. However, Heinz von Heiden wants even more, preferably direct access to your financing. But that is not the bank’s problem, it is yours.

If you are already upset now, even before building has even started, you should not even imagine what Heinz von Heiden has yet to tell you, which additional costs still await you or what problems may arise during construction...

I believe it hasn't been made completely clear what I am criticizing. The bank provides clarification; it states that there are costs associated with processes (cadastral map, land register, building encumbrance register, etc., the notary is represented with an approximate sum) and that these costs are unknown to them. These are costs outside the bank's sphere of influence, but they are mentioned. So far, so good. But at the current point in time, it looks as if this additional service you mentioned as non-mandatory is in fact mandatory, meaning there is no choice. Therefore, in my opinion, it necessarily belongs to the clarification, as it is essential. Here in my case it is manageable, but in other cases it does not necessarily have to be, especially with much larger amounts. And the bank can (could) very well take these costs into account during the clarification because it knows that with a contract for work with Heinz von Heiden only this one variant counts (as said, this is the current actual status. Of course, I will keep following up on this) and thus it is directly related to the loan. If there were a choice, it would not be worth mentioning here either.

Thanks nonetheless for the feedback.

But it is very clear!
As much as I’m sorry, you do not understand the connections. I don’t know how you come to the conclusion that a bank must inform you of all costs that can arise during construction... in the end, it would even be responsible for not informing you about development charges, because without those you can’t build a house.
A little maturity and personal responsibility are actually expected from you!
The point of the bank’s clarification is that it has to inform you about costs that are necessarily connected to the financing. Without a mortgage deed, no loan – ergo included in the effective interest rate.

A guarantee because of Heinz von Heiden? Build with someone else ... no guarantee necessary. Ergo it has nothing to do with the financing.

Unfortunately, you’re on the wrong track, even if you would maybe prefer to interpret it differently yourself.
If anyone is responsible here, it is Heinz von Heiden because they demand such things and do not accept a “simple” financing confirmation, or you, because you did not take care of it beforehand. Did you even know that Heinz von Heiden wanted something like that?