You have already paid a developer instalment. Afterwards the suspicion arises that a required security or some other statutory payment precondition was missing at that time. Future instalment planning alone does not resolve this past event. You need a separate review of the performance already rendered and of any possible claim for repayment.
Reconstruct the payment process completely
Our editorial recommendation: collate the contract and security documents, the payment request, any release and the actual proof of payment. Record whether you personally made the payment or whether the trustee paid on your behalf. An intended bank disbursement and the performance already made are different states.
First have it confirmed whether the transaction at all falls within the scope of the BTVG and which security model applies. Not every missing document automatically means the same statutory breach. The review must not overlook a particular statutory security arrangement simply because you had expected a different model.
Treat due date and repayment as two separate questions
§7 para 4 BTVG links the claims mentioned there to the existence of the statutory securities. [SICHERUNG-FUER-FAELLIGKEIT] §14 para 1 opens the way to repayment of performances that you or your trustee made for you contrary to the BTVG. [RUECKFORDERUNG]
This therefore designates a concrete legal line of enquiry for money already paid. Whether it exists for your payment and in what amount must be decided by specialists. A mere bad feeling about construction progress is not a basis for repayment identified here.
Do not estimate interest and limitation freely
§14 also contains an interest framework from the payment day and specifies a three-year limitation period. A prior waiver of the claim for repayment is therefore not effective; other grounds for repayment remain unaffected. [RUECKFORDERUNG]
These notes are a reason for a timely review. The article does not set a personal start of the limitation period and does not calculate any interest claim. For that, the time of payment, the basis of the claim and other circumstances must be properly assessed. Do not delay seeking advice until the final instalment merely because construction is still ongoing.
Fictitious case: the trustee has already transferred the money
A purchaser learns after a release of unresolved security preconditions. She initially believes that a right of repayment cannot exist simply because she did not transfer the money herself. She now has the performance made for her together with the release documents reviewed.
The advice assesses the actual transaction and the appropriate enforcement of the claim. The example does not confirm either an error by the trustee or a payment obligation of the developer. It merely prevents the role of payer being used as an exclusionary reason without review.
Do not replace further payments with an unreviewed set-off
A possible claim for repayment and the handling of the next invoice must be advised on together. This article does not give a blanket authorisation to withhold any further amount, to set it off yourself, or to call on a security.
The result should identify the challenged performance, the concrete statutory reference, the defendant and the intended next step in a comprehensible way. A recognised claim for repayment is also not the same as money actually received. Plan your further financing needs on the basis of the verified status.