Now my two cents on this – although I’m treading on somewhat thin ice with this topic.
The assignment or sale of the claim has no impact on the borrower as long as they comply with the contract terms (installment payments).
However, under certain circumstances, problems could arise for them if the borrower gets into payment difficulties.
An agreement can possibly still be reached with the bank that originally granted the loan – e.g. deferral, reduction of the installment, suspension of repayment. In my opinion, this also depends somewhat on the overall customer relationship as well as the communication between the customer and the bank (advisor). That’s why it is often said that the local bank, even if it has a slightly higher interest rate, may be the better choice.
Under certain circumstances, such agreements may also be possible with the purchaser of the claim – this party also does not want the loan to go down the drain and suddenly have a default recorded in their books. However, I can imagine that such a buyer might be quicker to play the "house sale" card if it significantly reduces or completely eliminates their default risk.
For example:
The loan is already 50% repaid.
The (lending) bank keeps the overall customer and the long-term customer relationship in mind. They will possibly try to support the customer with the aforementioned measures so that they can get back on their feet. They still have the "forced" sale of the house as an option.
The purchaser of the claim only has their purchased loan portfolio in view. If a default looks imminent, they could possibly realize the remaining 50% of the outstanding loan amount plus lost interest income / advance interest through the house sale. I think there is indeed a higher risk of sale here.
For us, it should be said that the financial advisor had only offered us loans where the bank had waived the sale of the claim.