Anyone who is interested in a loan and is already in an advanced stage of the decision is usually confronted with a topic that means there is residual debt insurance . Most loan providers submit at the latest with submission of the loan agreement most credit customers also the conclusion of just that insurance. For a good reason, because the banks earn good money with the mediation of that supposedly helpful and therefore recommendable insurance. Some credit providers even go so far as to make the awarding of a loan dependent on the conclusion of such a residual debt insurance. An approach that is often observed, especially with credit customers with weaker credit ratings. But residual debt insurance policies are far from being as recommendable as many a bank adviser wants to (or perhaps has to) negotiate. Our little guide explains whether this insurance makes sense, what to look for and how to get out of a corresponding insurance contract again.
Even if the bank adviser is still so flowery, the residual debt insurance is not worthwhile for the borrower in most cases. So it is not surprising that consumer protection experts as well as lawyers never tire of warning against the conclusion of such insurance. Because in addition to a fundamental question in terms of necessity, the criticism of the experts is above all on the cost of a residual debt insurance. Especially the costs are often incomprehensible and transparently calculated for laymen. The result is the conclusion of consistently overpriced tariffs. Because on average, the premiums were about 13 to 17 percent of the required loan amount. Significantly too expensive, which was also in 2014, the district court in Nuremberg.
However, in addition to the still far too high costs for this type of insurance, there is another factor adding to the value of credit for absurdity. The willingness to perform. Experts and market observers increasingly recognize that the insurance simply does not pay in the case of benefits . The crux lies in the terms and conditions of the insurance, in which many supposed and common benefit cases from the outset limited, if not completely excluded. For example, a sick leave may be the basis for a refusal to work. Which must lead to the realization that the high costs and insurance premiums are in no healthy relation to the actual available performance.
What consumers who want to take out a loan should know is that banks are not allowed to take insurance as a condition for granting a loan . However, if the bank insists on such a degree, you should look for another bank as a consumer. But even if under the credit agreement, which is present together with the consent to a residual debt insurance, a signature has been made, the insurance can still be terminated. An action that is absolutely to be supported. This possibility exists in particular if, for example, a loan is rescheduled or repaid prematurely. Because here arises a special right of termination. Which means that in such a situation the insurance purpose is eliminated. Here, a completed insurance may be terminated and without a notice period must be respected. As a borrower, you should then ask the insurer to repay the premium pro rata.
What applies in the case of credit agreements, also applies to insurance contracts: incorrect cancellation policy. A circumstance that is not necessarily aware of every consumer yet, but is of immense importance. Prerequisite for the revocation is that the instruction for revocation was not executed correctly . After all, over 80 percent of the loan agreements that were concluded before mid-2010 include a cancellation policy that is incomplete or incorrect . Because of this, until a few months ago it was possible to reverse an old loan agreement. Even if the deadline for revocation expired long ago or even if the loan was already paid off. As a customer you can therefore get out of the contract. The paid insurance premiums must be partially reimbursed in case of a confirmed, incorrect cancellation policy – at least!