North Rhine Medical Care

  • Erstellt am 2014-12-01 16:13:21

mayk294

2014-12-01 16:13:21
  • #1
Hello - I just got extremely annoyed with my lender - the NorDeutsche Reihenhauseinische Ärzteversorgung.
I applied for a forward loan through Interhyp in 2011 and received the offer from Volksbank MÜNSTER.
So far so good. The contract was concluded and has been running for over a year.
A few weeks ago, I received mail stating that a BRIEFBILDUNG was required by NorDeutsche Reihenhauseinische Ärzteversorgung.
This is part of the contract - apparently this is legally the case.
What am I annoyed about?
That this requirement comes after 1 year - and many lenders nowadays waive such a BRIEFBILDUNG!!!
So whoever wants to save the roughly 350 Euros should also ask Volksbank Münster BEFORE if NorDeutsche Reihenhauseinische Ärzteversorgung is the lender - and then (this is my personal opinion!!!) better stay away from it!!!!
The above only represents my own subjective opinion and personal experience!!!
 

nordanney

2014-12-01 16:20:44
  • #2
It probably says so in the mortgage deed that a subsequent creation of the land charge certificate at the customer's expense is possible. However, I cannot imagine a reason for this. Do you perhaps have another financing with Volksbank? Then it may be because both banks share the land charge - and that only works with a land charge certificate.
 

toxicmolotof

2014-12-01 19:22:46
  • #3
Then your loan will soon probably be bundled with other loans into a mortgage bond (or similar) to form a manageable sum of several million and then re-divided and sold to investors.

That is the downside of cheap money.

Apparently, the fine print was not fully read or understood.
 

nordanney

2014-12-01 19:49:46
  • #4
Covered bonds are great! As far as I know, the NÄV does not do this. They already invested their liquidity in loans 20 years ago. For several years now, insurance companies have also been doing this massively, as no returns can be generated otherwise there.
 

toxicmolotof

2014-12-01 20:52:45
  • #5
Why else would they want the letter? Otherwise, it makes little sense.
 

nordanney

2014-12-01 21:44:04
  • #6
For securitization, the [Grundschuldbrief] is unnecessary since only the claim is securitized. Nowadays, the [Grundschuldbrief] is almost unnecessary, and its abolition is even sometimes discussed among experts. The only benefit lies in a private written assignment (e.g., of a part when different banks finance - often with Volksbanken, as there are various cooperative partners and the customer sometimes has no idea where their money actually comes from).
 
Oben