KFW261 - Acceptance period is expiring - Developer not completing

Hello,

We applied for a KFW loan 261 almost 4 years ago. Unfortunately, we have not been able to fully draw it down to this day. About 1/3 of the loan amount is still outstanding. The reason for this is that the developer of the apartment building still cannot complete the common property.

Multiple water ingress in the basement, many other defects that are only being addressed slowly. Due to this circumstance, we are now losing 1/3 of the repayment grant.

How would you proceed, what are our options/rights.

We applied for a KFW loan 261 nearly 4 years ago. Unfortunately, we have not been able to draw it completely to date. About 1/3 of the loan amount is still outstanding. The reason for this is that the developer of the multi-family house still has not completed the communal property.

Since the measure has not yet been completed, you probably do not yet have the necessary confirmation from the energy consultant for the KfW. Or was he already able to issue it?

How would you proceed, what are our options/rights...

Options/Rights: - Apply again for an extension at the KfW - Apply for partial non-acceptance (should not cost any VE) and live with less credit and less repayment subsidy - If you already have the confirmation from the energy consultant, you can also talk to your bank about not disbursing the funds and initially depositing and blocking them in a bank account - Invoice the developer for your damages (due to delay, this should not be a problem – but then it looks like the next legal dispute) These are the points that come to my mind spontaneously.

If a multi-family house developer does not manage to complete a project ready for acceptance within four years due to defects, this also significantly affects their liquidity by causing the capital invested in the project to be turned over too slowly. Therefore, consulting a lawyer familiar with insolvency law is advisable. Expect an insolvency that will affect you.

Overall, your post still contains too little information: is your move-in still pending because of this / have you already moved into the apartment yourself and implicitly partially accepted it; is the developer also the seller (or not even directly your contractual partner), ...

We have been living in the apartment for two years. The common property should have been completed two years ago. From time to time, water enters the building at different points during heavy rain. This raises serious doubts as to whether the drainage concept is correct at all. For this reason, we as the homeowners' association have commissioned an expert to clarify this issue. The apartment has been accepted accordingly. The final payment has been outstanding for two years. The developer is the seller. Presumably, the best approach will be to try the proposal to charge the cost of the damage.

The final installment has been outstanding for two years. The developer is the seller. Presumably, the best approach is to try charging the damage; that is the only option.

Hopefully you will also act together as a condominium owners' association (notably with a lawyer experienced in insolvency law). The still outstanding final installments can indeed represent a trump card here, indicating that the developer does not yet formally or on the balance sheet consider themselves insolvent, although they will in fact be insolvent. The goal is therefore to prevent the liable estate from being depleted or becoming insufficient in ongoing operations. I would consider filing a third-party request for insolvency proceedings here. I have described in numerous posts regarding the insolvency proceedings Traumhaus / Hildmann, Gussek Haus as well as Tecklenburg why and that one must not have naive ideas about set-offs here. Also pay attention to whether the developer and the seller are really identical. More often, you deal with separate companies economically controlled by the same hands, usually a corporation and a partnership. So the same beneficial owner, but legally different entities. In addition to rules in insolvency that contradict non-legal common sense regarding set-offs, you are therefore dealing with parties on the claims and obligations side that are different despite similar names.