GL, VVD and SP from Wageningen pose critical questions about inadequate housing rights in the anti-squat construction.

Groenlinks, VVD and SP from Wageningen ask critical questions to the Mayor and Aldermen after the film screening of the documentary “Vacancy without worries” and into the debate Movie W in Wageningen on October 24. A short report of this evening is here to find.

Below you will find the questions that will be answered within a month. If you come from Wageningen, please contact us for follow-up actions.

To the College of Mayor and Aldermen

of the Municipality of Wageningen

Market 22



Wageningen, 26 November 2012

Subject: Written questions ex. article 39 CoC

Subject: Anti-squat occupation and housing rights en

Dear college,

During an evening of debate organized by the groups of VVD, SP and GroenLinks on October 24, the poor housing rights of tenants who temporarily occupy vacant buildings on an anti-squat basis were discussed. Due to the legal anti-squat construction, anti-squatters haves significantly fewer rights than regular tenants. The temporary residents do not receive a rental contract but a user contract, as a result of which the legal rent protection is often not observed. As a result, not only can the agreement be terminated at exceptionally short notice, the temporary residents also often have to tolerate frequent and unannounced inspection visits and strict restrictions are placed on receiving visitors or leaving the building for several days.

GroenLinks, VVD and SP are of the opinion that temporary occupation of vacant buildings can be part of vacancy policy, but that the municipality remains responsible for the conditions under which squatters occupy its buildings on a temporary basis. This applies without prejudice if the implementation of the temporary occupancy is placed in the hands of an intermediary agency.


The parties of SP, VVD and GroenLinks therefore ask you the following questions:

  1. Is it also Wageningen policy that vacant buildings owned by the municipality can be temporarily occupied by means of an anti-squat scheme?
  2. If so, with which anti-squat mediation agency(s) does the municipality work together? If not, what other solution does the municipality have for temporary occupation of vacant buildings owned by the municipality?
  3. Is the municipal executive aware of the often deficient housing rights of anti-squat residents and how do these rights form part of the agreements that the municipality makes with the anti-squat mediation agency? Is the Commission prepared to include those rights in the agreements, if this has not yet happened?
  4. Does the council have an example of the user contracts that the anti-squat agency concludes with temporary residents of buildings belonging to the municipality, and can the municipal council receive an anonymous copy of this?
  5. Is the council prepared to switch to temporary letting in accordance with the Vacancy Act instead of anti-squat occupancy? When could this be realized, or what objections does the Commission see in this?


Awaiting your written reply,


With best regards,


Johan Osinga Hettie van Nes Jo Soolsma






Support the fight for housing security!

Recent Posts

BPW Newsletter