In November, the Bond Precaire Wonen was approached by a resident with a temporary contract with the Ymere housing association. The resident lives in a house in Amsterdam that is on Ymere's renovation list, under a 'user agreement' drawn up by Ymere itself.

The moment he moved into the house, it was made clear to him by other local residents that his neighbors below were prone to complaining and were hostile to temporary residents. Unfortunately, this was soon confirmed. Although the resident has installed carpet in the house and does not even have a radio, or anything else that could make music or noise, there were complaints about noise pollution.

A second cause for complaint arose when the resident came home one evening with some friends, ran into the neighbors and told them that these friends would be staying for a few days.

This prompted the neighbors to call Ymere immediately. Ymere subsequently carried out an unannounced inspection of the home. Apart from obviously being a clear violation of his privacy, this unannounced inspection even violated the provisions of the 'user agreement'. During the inspection, the residents' friends were found.

A few days later, the resident was notified by letter of immediate termination of his contract, on the grounds of 'constant serious nuisance'. Inquiries by telephone by a Dutch friend of the resident (who is not of Dutch descent herself), however, reference was made to his foreign origin, the presence of his friends in the home, and the suggestion was made that he was subletting his home.

The resident was able to find the BPW on this. In consultation with the resident, the case was investigated and a letter was drawn up to Ymere, in which the unreasonableness of the termination was raised.

As a result, Ymere was willing to enter into a dialogue and entered into a dialogue with the resident. In the first conversation it was denied that an inspection had been carried out (it was mysteriously learned from 'construction workers' that the resident had guests). In addition, the resident was accused of going to the BPW.

The resident persisted in the arguments presented by us and during the second interview Ymere was wise enough to conduct further investigations himself. This showed that the complaints of the neighbors below – as well as the ideas of Ymere himself – were unfounded, and the termination was withdrawn.