KFW-40 standard is required but building according to KFW-55 standard; contractual penalty, consequences?

Hi!

So, the penalty clause is the private law part. If that is stipulated in the [B-Plan], then the public law part follows. And that is far worse, up to and including the prohibition of use.

Conclusion: I would be a bit more cautious in choosing the possible construction partners. They would definitely be out immediately with me...

It's still just a thought experiment

Leave it at that. You have to submit a KfW40 plan for the building permit.
Find another company. The difference in efficiency (no QNG & Co) does not cost the stated amount. Unless it’s a cheapo who already delivers cheap junk anyway. And if he’s already suggesting fraud to me, it’s probably in his building DNA as well.
Generously calculated, it’s 100€ per sqm of living space in extra costs. I have clients who actually calculate only 50€. But they also build without strictly adhering to the Building Energy Act.

No, this has nothing to do with “Sockenschuß,” but is foresight. Since the original climate targets have been abandoned, the deadlines have now been extended until 2050 to build the climate-neutral house. This includes old buildings. That means anyone who today only implements the building energy law minimum standard in new construction will start renovating at the latest in 20 years. As Nordanney already wrote, the step from 55 to 40 is not big, if at all, at most in the (profitable) supplements. But anyone who shamelessly points to Bech...ss simply deserves to be disqualified.

No, this has nothing to do with a screw loose, but with foresight. Since the original climate targets have been abandoned, the deadlines have now been extended until 2050 to build the climate-neutral house. This includes existing buildings. This means that anyone who today only installs the minimum building energy law standard in new construction will start renovating at the latest in 20 years.

Albert Borland would say: "I don't believe that, Tim." There are still several European Parliament terms or half a dozen Bundestag election periods until 2050. I consider that a sufficient time span to come to one's senses as a politician. The inflation of anticipatory obedience cannot continue forever (see Abraham Lincoln). Obligations to catch up for existing buildings only apply upon transfer of ownership; in twenty years, hopefully, the OP will not yet have become a testator. Clearly no, I do not see today's law-abiding citizen by any means as tomorrow's backward one (but rather inevitable rightsizing of state citizen edification is coming). Even a "good cause" like the environment does not justify all means, and governments should not exceed their pedagogical competencies. Re-education with the ruler does not implement forward thinking.

It must be said that due to the small additional cost, almost every professional real estate market participant builds 40 instead of 55. It is not only more economical for the person living in it, but especially for the owner. When selling, marketing, renting, maintaining value (not calculated over 50 years now, but anyone with a horizon of 10-15 years should think about it) …

since money is saved due to the elimination of a ventilation system. Both acquisition and running costs.

Is it about the MVHR or the contractual penalty? MVHR is also a comfort not to be underestimated without significant running costs.

You have to submit a KfW40 plan for the building permit

That is probably exactly the problem.
The contractual penalty is offered if the planned KfW 40 house does not meet the required values unexpectedly.