Flex tenants of housing corporation Sint. Servatius in Maastricht receive a rent increase of 80%. A tenant from Mathias Soironstraat refuses to accept this and is fined 500 euros per day. The fine has already risen to 60,000 euros. On June 4, the lawsuit that Sint. Servatius has filed to evict the tenant from his house.

Martin, job-seeker and born in Maastricht, tenant of one of the 100 homes of Servatius that has been leased through an anti-squat construction (read disguised rental contract). 1,2,3 ) through Ad Hoc are rented out has been living in a house that is nominated to be demolished for more than 6 years. All the while, Martin paid a rental fee of starting at 120 euros in 2008, increasing with a rent increase of €5/year, now 150 euros per month, excluding utilities and municipal taxes and service contracts for heating and hot water. Nevertheless, Ad Hoc and Servatius suddenly canceled the contract last December without the building being demolished, which will take another 2-3 years. Servatius now suddenly wanted the homes via Maximus BV rent out to the sitting tenants via a vacancy law contract.

The BPW thinks it is positive that a corporation wants to stop with strangulation contracts through anti-squat agencies, but they wanted to go through this
ordinary exchange trick also implement a rent increase of 80%. Martin was quite willing to accept the other Leegstandwet contract, but on the condition that he would continue to pay the same rent. He also took the position, supported by his lawyer the BPW and the Nederlandse Woonbond, that by paying this monthly fee he had a rental contract, including rent protection and rent protection. This instead of a loan contract, which is always "free" and for which no fee has to be paid. In the event of a cancellation, therefore, neatly arranged replacement accommodation and relocation costs had to be paid.

Servatius and her representative Ad Hoc did not accept this and fined Martin 500 euros per day when he refused to leave the house in January after termination of the contract. The BPW states “this is an old-fashioned strategy to smoke out tenants and have them accept a rent increase of 80%”. Servatius hid behind Ad Hoc all that time as she would not be a party because there would be no legal relationship with the tenant. However, it is Servatius, the owner of the property, who is now suing the tenant. The BPW finds it unworthy of a housing corporation that it puts financial pressure on tenants by external parties and intimidates them with dubious fines. The BPW therefore demands that Servatius withdraw the summary proceedings to evict the tenant and offer the tenant(s) a suitable solution. Many other tenants in the neighborhood have accepted the rent increase of 80% on pain of losing their house and threatening with fines of 500 euros per day. It is not the first time that housing associations have arranged all kinds of flex contracts via external agencies in order to circumvent tenancy law and the relevant rent protection.

The BPW calls on local parties to call Servatius to account, force her into social policy and have her immediately stop this financial intimidation of tenants.

If you would like more background information about this case or contact Martin please contact the BPW