Typical errors in a revocation instruction that lead to a “eternal” right of objection

We check if your in­struc­tion is in­cor­rect, free of charge for you! You just have to send us your cor­res­pond­ing doc­u­ments. But you may also like to know up­front, which typ­ical er­rors oc­cur in re­voc­a­tion in­struc­tions. Of course, the list can­not be conclusive.

1. Violation against the requirement of clear design

The in­struc­tion needs to be ob­vi­ous for the poli­cy­holder, there­fore it needs to be clearly de­signed. It must not get lost in the con­tinu­ous text. Its high­light­ing can be done through big­ger Ty­po­graphy, bold print, dif­fer­ent color or framing.

2. Issues with regard to the formal requirements of the notice of objection by the policyholder

It was man­dat­ory to point out to the poli­cy­holder, in which Form the re­voc­a­tion needed to be filed. For con­tracts, which were con­cluded be­fore 31 July 2001, it was man­dat­ory to file the ob­jec­tion in writ­ten form. For con­tracts as of 1 Au­gust 2001, the text format was valid. In many cases, the in­struc­tion was miss­ing such a ref­er­ence or the text format was re­quired in­stead of the writ­ten form.

3. Incorrect information about the period of objection

The period of ob­jec­tion for con­tracts con­cluded un­til 7 Decem­ber 2004, ac­coun­ted for 14 days. From 8 Decem­ber 2004, it ac­coun­ted for 30 days.

4. Incorrect information at the beginning of the period of objection.

The period of the ob­jec­tion of 14 or 30 days starts with the re­cep­tion of the in­sur­ance policies, the gen­eral con­di­tions of the in­sur­ance and all the other con­sumer in­form­a­tion. This needs to be poin­ted out to the poli­cy­holder. In many cases, this ap­plic­able term of these trig­ger­ing doc­u­ments is missing.

5. Missing or false terms of deadline

The period of ob­jec­tion is re­spec­ted by the timely sub­mis­sion of the de­clar­a­tion of ob­jec­tion. The “timely” re­ceipt of the state­ment by the in­surer is not de­cis­ive for the dead­line. This must also be poin­ted out in the in­struc­tion, for ex­ample by “the timely dis­patch is sufficient”.

How to reach us

Schirp & Part­ner Recht­san­wälte mbB
Leipzi­ger Platz 9
10117 Ber­lin, Germany

Phone: +49 (0)30 – 327 617 0
Fax: +49 (0)30 – 327 617 17
E-​Mail: mail@​schirp.​com

Legal Advisory Label

Please take note that we can not answer consultatively here. If you happen to request that anyways, you may give us full power of attorney. For that, simply download this form, sign it and return it to us.

News

POC Growth 1: AAA-Informationen

Lesen Sie die Ab­stim­mung­sem­p­fehlun­gen des Ak­tions­bundes Akt­iver An­leger­s­chutz e.V. zu den Beschlussan­trä­gen der Geschäfts­führung und neh­men Sie bitte an der Ver­sammlung per­sön­lich teil, oder lassen Ihre In­teressen durch den AAA ver­tre­ten. Quelle: Aktionsbund

Rückforderung der Ausschüttungen jetzt auch beim MCE Fonds 08

Nun er­wis­cht es auch die An­leger des MCE Fonds 08: In­solv­en­zver­wal­ter Prof. Dr. Ger­rit Hölzle aus der Kan­zlei Görg lässt über die von ihm beau­ftragte Kan­zlei Lud­wig Wöhren Schewtschenko von den An­legern Aus­schüt­tun­gen zurück­fordern. Zehn Prozent der dam­als geleisteten Ein­lage will er von den An­legern haben. Quelle: Aktionsbund

White Owl Capital (WOC) Solarfonds – Initiatoren verdienen auf Kosten der Anleger

Bisher hat­ten wir diese Beteili­gun­gen man­gels Nachfrage bei un­seren Mit­gliedern nicht näher unter die Lupe gen­om­men. Quelle: Aktionsbund

Lichtblick für die Leonidas-Anleger?

Die HTB-​Gruppe aus Bre­men, als Fonds-​Initiator und Fonds­ver­wal­ter und vor al­lem für ihre Zweitmarkt-​Fonds bekannt, ist durch Über­nahme von Gesell­schaftsanteilen in die Geschäfts­führung und vor al­lem die Anleger-​Betreuung der Leonidas-​Gruppe eingestie­gen. Hier tobte in den let­zten Mon­aten ein Kampf der ehem­als ge­mein­samen Un­ternehmens­gründer Max-​Robert Hug und Antje Gries­eler. Die An­leger der Windpark- und Solar-​Fonds beklagen […]

Premium savings contracts: BGH again strengthens consumer rights

Ac­cord­ing to a rul­ing by the Fed­eral Court of Justice on Oc­to­ber 6, 2021, savers who have con­cluded premium sav­ings con­tracts can now de­mand money back. This is how the judges in Karls­ruhe ruled on the first model de­clar­at­ory ac­tion brought by con­sumer pro­tec­tion groups con­cern­ing un­law­ful clauses on vari­able in­terest rates in many older premium […]

CJEU strengthens consumer rights: “Revocation joker” for millions of consumer credit agreements

The CJEU found that many con­sumer loan agree­ments can still be re­voked years later.

All Announcements »

Copyright © Schirp & Partner Solicitors | Legal Notice | Privacy Statement
Zum Seitenanfang