Mortgage value appraisal and Article 13 of the Basic Law

Hello everyone,

I bought an old building house about 5 years ago for around €200,000. For this and the subsequent renovation, I took out a loan of €230,000 from Sparkasse. In total, I have invested around €350,000. My remaining debt currently amounts to €180,000.

Now I have received a letter from Sparkasse stating that I should consent to the preparation of a mortgage valuation report. In other words, appraisers commissioned by Sparkasse are to inspect my house and take photos inside and outside to prepare the said report.

This surprises me because my loan agreement has been running smoothly since then. I have even made a special repayment. I have never been in default or had my checking account overdrawn. Why is this happening now after 5 years? If this had happened before the loan was granted, I would understand, but not like this.
When I inquired at Sparkasse, I was told that there is a new legal situation according to which banks are obligated to prepare such a report ([Beleihungswertverordnung]). This necessarily includes an external and internal inspection.

Now I have the following questions:

a) How is this compatible with Art. 13 of the Basic Law regarding the inviolability of the home?
b) In which paragraph does the legislature obligate me to grant the creditor this access?
c) My loan amount was almost entirely used for the purchase. So why does Sparkasse now concern itself with my privacy?
d) Has anyone had similar experiences?

It cannot be that the legislature grants credit institutions this unrestricted access to privacy. Consider how many borrowers might be affected. This would almost amount to widespread spying!

I am grateful for any answers!

Many greetings,
Max

I hear this for the first time...

Have the bank give/show you the legal basis.

And check your loan agreement again to see if the bank can simply request information and reports.

First approach, and I think this is what the bank is referring to, can be found in Art. 208 of the CRR.

According to this, residential real estate must be valued every 3 years.

However: How the bank does this is their business. Of course, you can refuse access.

Whether and to what extent this is helpful to the matter is up to you. Let’s play this through: The value is estimated lower due to lack of knowledge, so a later extension offer could be more expensive than necessary. Or in the extreme case, the property experiences such a large devaluation that you are called upon to provide additional collateral, otherwise a loan termination threatens. Both very contrived, but possible.

Now back to the beginning: The bank is obliged to carry out the valuation, the inspection is the fastest and most efficient way.

And I promise you... The bank and the appraiser have absolutely no interest in the color of your bed linen, the contents of your kitchen, or the mural in the living room. It is solely about structural damage and the condition of the building and the house installations like heating or bathrooms.

Everything else is completely irrelevant.

Hello,

thank you for the answers.
I have since contacted my loan advisor. He wants to inform me soon about the legal regulations on which the interior inspection is based. I am curious about that....
It annoys me that the bank explicitly says that I will not be informed of the results of the appraisal! Is that in accordance with data protection law? I do think one has the right to know what data is stored about them, right?
What does "Nachsicherung" mean? Can the contract be terminated without notice? Possibly with a "prepayment penalty" or another penalty?

Best regards,
Max

a) How is this compatible with Art. 13 of the Basic Law regarding the inviolability of the home? b) In which paragraph does the legislator oblige me to grant the lender this access? c) My loan amount was almost entirely used for the acquisition. So what does the Sparkasse have to do with my privacy now? d) Has anyone had similar experiences?

Comparable cases: Every tenant is subject, for example, to the (contractual) right of inspection by the landlord, must allow prospective buyers access to the apartment during a sale... The owner of a thing has, against the possessor, for example, rights from § 809 of the Building Code... So calm down.

The right of inspection follows, for example, from contractual ancillary obligations, which have their general legal basis in, for example, §§ 241, 311 of the Building Code. It may have to be sued for and enforced if necessary, but it all works.

Regarding the questions: a) Perfect, since Art. 13 GG only protects against state interventions. b) Specifically probably from the directive, in any case as an ancillary obligation from the loan agreement as a contractual relationship, see above. It must be proportionate, among other things, and is a balancing of interests. c) The collateral is supposed to be valuable. Trust vs. control. d) For example, tenants, see above.

The content and limits of ownership are granted and determined by the state. That's just how it is.

Hello Otus11,

Comparable cases:
Every tenant is subject, for example, to the (contractual) right of inspection by the landlord, must allow prospective buyers into the apartment during a sale....
The owner of a thing has, for example, rights against the possessor under §809 of the Building Code... So calm down.

I don’t find that comparable at all. I am the owner, not the bank! It also doesn’t matter how high the land charge is compared to the value of the property. The bank would also demand the appraisal if the remaining debt was €10,000. Comparable at most would be the powers of the chimney sweep, which, however, comply with Art. 13 para. 7 GG.

The right of inspection follows, for example, from contractual ancillary obligations, which generally have their legal basis in, for example, §§241, 311 of the Building Code. It may have to be enforced by lawsuit and execution, but it all works.

There is no mention in my contractual documents of photo documentation of the interiors, nor of mortgage lending value appraisals, etc..

a) Fine, since Art. 13 GG only intends to protect against state interventions.

I don’t understand that. Where does it say that Art. 13 only applies to the state? Does Art. 1 para. 1 sentence 1 GG also apply only to the state?


I look forward to the answer from the Sparkasse.

Best regards,
Max