Court approves Amsterdam social housing eviction of tenants who own 12 other properties

Housing corporation Ymere can terminate the lease of tenants of a social housing unit in Amsterdam-West, the court in Amsterdam ruled. The couple, who rented the social housing unit for €670 per month, own seven homes as well as five commercial spaces. They therefore no longer belong to the target group for social housing, the court ruled.

The tenant involved has lived in the Ymere social rental unit for 33 years. Ten years ago, he married his wife. Together, the two own twelve properties - seven residential units and five commercial spaces.

At the end of last year, Ymere informed the tenants that it was terminating their lease because the couple no longer belonged to the housing corporation’s target group. The tenants took the matter to court.

Ymere argued that it has a legal obligation to make homes available to people who cannot find a home themselves. The housing corporation pointed out that the waiting time for a social housing unit has increased to over 13 years. With seven residential properties to their name, Ymere argued that the tenants can provide for their own “housing needs” and therefore don’t belong to Ymere’s target group.

The man argued that he had not belonged to the housing corporation’s target group from the very beginning. He also claimed that the property involved was not a social housing unit. But he could not substantiate this claim to the court’s satisfaction.

The tenants also argued that they were rooted in the neighborhood and that the social housing unit had been adapted to their needs. The man has multiple sclerosis and diabetes, and the home has been adapted for a wheelchair and mobility scooter. They also argued that they would lose income if they were forced to move into one of the properties that they are currently renting out.

The court acknowledged the tenants’ arguments, but ruled that Ymere’s interests weigh more heavily. The court noted that housing corporations are legally obliged to give priority in their housing policy to people who cannot find a home. “That priority can, under certain circumstances, also entail that the lease of an existing tenant is terminated at the expense of a home seeker.”

The court added that housing corporations can only evict tenants if they can “state with justification” that the tenant “will not experience difficulties in finding suitable housing” upon leaving the home.

Ymere is pleased with the ruling, a spokesperson told the Amsterdam newspaper Het Parool. “The court is crystal clear: anyone who owns one or more homes no longer belongs to the target group for social housing. If a tenant owns a home, a housing corporation may terminate the lease so that the property becomes available for a home seeker who is actually dependent on social housing.”

The ruling provides clarity, the Ymere spokesperson said. “Not only for us, but for all housing corporations. It helps us to act in similar situations. Naturally, we always look at the individual circumstances of every tenant.”

Zita Pels, Amsterdam’s housing alderman, is also pleased with the ruling. “Through an amendment to the housing ordinance, we have now arranged that, as of January 1, you cannot obtain a social rental home if you already own a home. This court ruling makes it easier to address existing cases as well. Social rental homes are for people who desperately need them,” she told the newspaper.

Lawyer Joris Leeflang, who represented the tenants, told Parool that the verdict was disappointing because the tenants must now leave their home of more than 30 years. They are still considering whether to appeal.