Dutch social housing rent freeze plan ‘legally flawed,’ Council of State warns

The Council of State has sharply criticized the Dutch government’s proposal to freeze rents in the social housing sector for two years, citing legal and procedural concerns. The independent advisory body recommended that the government reconsider the legislation, noting fundamental flaws in the current plan.

The rent freeze agreement emerged from coalition negotiations over the spring budget involving PVV, VVD, NSC, and BBB parties. The deal aims to freeze social housing rents until mid-2027. Housing Minister Mona Keijzer was assigned to draft the legislation and ensure its implementation before July 1.

In its official advisory, the Council of State described the legislative process as “problematic,” pointing to a lack of thorough preparation and the omission of crucial procedural steps caused by time constraints. The Council concluded that the cabinet should not proceed with the bill in its current form.

A primary concern raised by the Council is the unequal treatment of tenants. The rent freeze would apply only to tenants of housing corporation-owned properties—approximately 2.3 million people—while excluding around 500,000 tenants living in privately owned social housing. The ministry stated that extending the freeze to private landlords would be “unworkable.” However, the Council noted that this discrepancy poses legal risks.

“This two-tier approach results in one tenant facing a rent increase while another in a similar situation does not,” the Council wrote. “That is difficult to justify in court.”

Minister Keijzer acknowledged the Council’s critique, calling the advice “a strong recommendation.” She said she is preparing a formal response to discuss with coalition leaders and the cabinet.

The Council also questioned the financial aspects of the plan. Although the coalition has set aside funds to compensate housing corporations for lost rent revenue during the freeze, the Council found the compensation insufficient. It warned that the shortfall could conflict with constitutional property rights and reduce investments in new housing construction.

Lower rental income may jeopardize the government’s goal of building 100,000 new homes annually. Housing corporations have already initiated legal proceedings, with a court hearing scheduled for Wednesday.