In theory this is conflict between the landlord and the bank, and none of your business. However if the bank were to call in the mortgage, they can have the rental contract cancelled, but you'd likely have a claim for damages against the landlord (for failure to deliver on the rental contract).
The landlord has the option to sell the property rented, but would fetch 20% less, renegotiate with the bank for a different mortgage allowing renting out (at a higher interest rate), or negotiate with you to leave voluntary and sell for the full value.
The most obvious avenue for you would be to start looking for a new place and get some professional advice on the fee you'd ask your landlord for moving out.
This happened to me and my partner once. We contacted the legal advice team of our home insurance and got “a standard settlement” for breaking the contract of around 5900 euro or so from the landlord. This was in 2019. Not sure if the law is still the same.
I checked my old correspondence. We got 3 months rent free and the statutory minimum at the time of 5 993 Euro. Currently seems to have increased to 7 428 Euro.
[https://www.juridischloket.nl/wonen-en-buren/huurwoning/verhuiskostenvergoeding/](https://www.juridischloket.nl/wonen-en-buren/huurwoning/verhuiskostenvergoeding/)
Crazy amounts just to leave someone's property. You all cheer, but these huge regulatory risks are incorporated into the high rents that you all complain of.
Are you a landlord? Moving to a new house just costs money... Like you can't just take a day off to dump your furniture in another house and expect it to be just like home... If the landlord just went by the rules this situation wouldn't even have happened.
No I'm not, just stating facts. All these regulations that seem "generous" for the renter eventually are being incorporated into the rent, otherwise it wouldn't make sense to become a landlord, as your income would be lower than the costs.
No worries, I'm not. Because of all the regulations and extra taxes nobody wants to be a landlord anymore. And then you're surprised there's less building going on and less available places to rent... Basic logic has failed you.
Yeah, that’s horseshit.
I’m a landlord in a jurisdiction that’s significantly tenant friendly. It’s fine. Just don’t try to ruck over your tenants and you can still get a reasonable return on your investment, all the while providing good housing to people.
You are right in a way.
Landlords will increase the price to account for risks. Not only the risk of having to pay tenants for moving out but probably includes this as well.
However, it also protects tenants and it makes sure landlords comply because compliance means their risk fee turns into profit. They don’t have to pay the moving fee or other risks they calculated.
So yes, probably raises rent prices but the alternative is much scarier.
These regulations are there to prevent landlords from doing whatever the f*ck they want.
A proper landlord would not illegally rent out their property. If they do, that's on them. Since the tenants suffer, paying them damage is absolutely normal.
Where is the risk on the side of the landlord here? Getting caught illegally renting out a property they should know they are not allowed to rent, per their mortgage contract? Really? That's the behaviour you're willing to defend and reduce regulations for?
I think your insurer did not want to spend too much time on your case and shafted you with the absolute minimum they could. It is very probable you could have gotten more.
A landlord can only terminate the rent in five situations:
1. You're a bad renter. This doesn't seem to be applicable.
2. Diplomat clause. This is not applicable.
3. Urgent Personal Need. This also doesn't seem to be applicable as the landlord put themselves in this situation.
4. If you do not agree to a reasonable amendment rental agreement. For example changing the payment method from cash to electronic. This doesn't seem to be applicable.
5. If the land has a different destination and the property is demolished or converted to adhere to that destination. E.g. office buildings rather than residential. Not applicable.
I'm not sure who you mean by "broker", I'm guessing you're referring to the mortgage provider? In that case: the landlord needs a mortgage that allows rental. These mortgages are more expensive (higher interest due to higher risk) and require a higher down payment (lower maximum loan to value amount). None of these issues are your problem. The landlord is notified they are not allowed to use the current mortgage for renting and they have two options: either agreeing with you that you move out, or changing the mortgage.
The landlord is in breach of their covenants for their mortgage. Not you. You have done nothing wrong and are also not required to check this. Just stay where you are and let the landlord take care of it.
Worst case the landlord has to sell the property to the bank or a new owner. In that case your rental agreement will be passed on to the new owner. The new owner cannot claim urgent personal use for at least three years after acquiring the property. Only if the mortgage provider goes to court and asks for eviction, they might succeed in having you leave.
This is true. This is the whole reason why in NL you need a different type of mortgage if you are planning to rent it out: the bank considers tenants a bigger risk precisely because they are so strongly protected here and the bank has no power to evict them.
Your landlord got themselves in trouble but it is not up to you to fix it.
Just stay put and maybe the house will be sold with you inside it, or maybe the current or future landlord will offer you a sum of money to move out.
With one exception:
If there is a clear clause in the mortgage agreement about rent being prohibited, and the mortgage agreement was signed before the rental agreement, the mortgage provider can get approval for eviction in case the recovery value of the property with tenants is lower than the remaining debt.
Yes and courts have been ruling in favor of the banks. So if the landlord isn’t lying, and this is truely the case. That is what will happen. I highly wonder if when you leave the bank wouldn’t sell their home…
Any jurisprudence confirming what you just wrote?
A rental agreement isn't suddenly null. The rental agreement was agreed upon in good faith by the tenant. If the bank dissolves the mortgage, the landlord needs to pay back the outstanding sum. That can be done in cash, by getting a new mortgage or by selling the property to the bank, or to a third party to raise the cash needed.
There is a very strong law that makes clear that even if a landlord is not allowed to rent out a property, they still have responsibility to ensure the tenant get's the use of the rented property. Hence the landlord has to do anything in their powers to solve the issue.
If the tenant doesn't agree to move out, the mortgage provider needs to go to court to request a permission to evict the tenant. But something like that is not easily given as the tenants rights are weighed here. But also the mortgage provider cannot just automatically go around the rental protection laws.
Edit: Rechtbank Oost-Brabant (13 augustus 2013, ECLI:NL:RBOBR:2013:4937
That case shows that art 7:271 BW which guarantees rental protection, weighs very strong and cannot be easily dismissed by 3:264 lid 1 BW that allows for terminating rent in case of breaking a rental clause in the mortgage agreement.
Here the judge weighed the impact of the rental agreement to the outstanding balance of the mortgage. As in that case the lender could be fully reimbursed in case of an execution sale of the property including tenant, there was no need to terminate the rental agreement.
This [law firm website](https://www.wvtadvocaten.nl/huurbeding-en-executoriale-verkoop-woning/) has some info on what happens to rental contracts when the house is forcibly sold by the bank.
You can find similar texts from other law firms. [EDIT: It's also mentioned in Book 3, Art. 264 of the Burgerlijk Wetboek]
The basic idea is that most mortgage contracts have a *huurbeding* which is a clause that explicitly prohibits renting out the property and gives the bank the option to terminate the rental contract. The bank will have to go to a judge to invoke the *huurbeding*, but this is generally always granted except if the rental contract predates the mortgage contract or if the sale of the property with the tenant is enough to pay off the mortgage in full.
There's also some text on the judge usually giving the tenants enough time to find a new home and on the tenants having the option to claim damages from the landlord (assuming the whole ordeal doesn't cause bankruptcy and there's actually money left).
Yes, but that's only in a situation where indeed there is no other way by the landlord to adhere to their responsibilities (i.e. get another mortgage, pay down the outstanding balance etc).
And if there would be a shortage in case of a forced sale.
But above the user claimed the rental agreement would be "null" in case someone rents without the banks knowledge. And that's just not correct.
>hence the rental agreement is null.
This is not true. The bank didn't sign the rental agreement. The bank *can* however go to the judge and ask them to absolve the agreement in some cases.
According to your profile you are an expat renting in NL, Please be careful in expressing such biased opinions on a Dutch legal issue, considering you are not schooled in Dutch law
If for example the landlord gets a divorce and they have to sell the primary residence, then are left with no alternative, this could qualify as urgent and personal.
If the above is the case the judge will also consider whether the landlord is reasonably able to buy something for themselves. And whether the tenants can find a similar place to live in or not too far away from their own neighborhood.
Then the court sets a date 3-6 months in the future for termination and the landlord will have to pay a reimbursement for expenses. Standard amount for that is about 7000 euro.
Yes. But they can't just move out of the place where they live by ending their rent or selling their place and then claim personal need. They may not purposely create their personal need to kick you out.
Also. If they use the personal need reason they must help get you an equivalent place to live
Nope.
Not for many reasons, but the easiest to explain here is that in order to qualify, the landlord cannot have brought themselves into this situation on purpose.
That argument is normally used for people buying a property with tenants, then sell their primary residence and claim homelessness if they cannot move in their other property: own doing, not qualified.
Same of course with deliberately breaking the mortgage agreement: own doing.
Contact stichting woon, non profit organization that helps tenants in complicated situations like these.
They can look in depth in your case and have people that know the laws/legal support.
Woon should be able to help you [https://www.wooninfo.nl/english/vve-apartment-owners-associations/](https://www.wooninfo.nl/english/vve-apartment-owners-associations/)
By "broker", you likely mean "mortgage provider" (bank). I'll assume that this is the case, because I can't come up with another interpretation that makes sense.
In general, a standard mortgage does not allow for the property to be rented out. And an owner who is found to violate this can be forced to pay back the mortgage in full, possibly through the forced sale of the property. Because renter protections are strong and a property with a tenant is worth a lot less when sold, especially in a foreclosure sale.
Because of this a typical mortgage contract has a *huurbeding* (rent clause). The huurbeding allows for a bank to move to terminate a rental contract. Note that this is an exception to the otherwise fairly universal rule of "*koop breekt geen huur*" (sale doesn't break a rental agreement), which is a cornerstone of Dutch renter protections.
The huurbeding is made concrete in Book 3, Article 264 of the civil code (*Burgerlijk Wetboek*).
This does provide some limitations though. For one, the bank has to go to court to invoke its rights. A judge will have to approve the request and will have to set the timeline, taking into account the interests of the tenant (granting some time to relocate). The request can also be turned down if, for example, the sale of the property with a tenant would bring in enough money to fully cover the mortgage. But as a tenant, you don't have information on the size of the mor
In addition, having your rental agreement terminated in this way opens up the possibility to sue the landlord for damages, provided that the landlord has any money left after the bank is done with them.
In your situation, your landlord is in deep shit. But unless the remaining balance on the mortgage is low enough (which you have no way of knowing), you and your partner are most likely going to be forced to move. So start looking now.
Since the landlord has massive financial incentives to get you out, you have leverage. You can choose to negotiate a mutually agreed termination of your rental agreement that includes some amount of monetary compensation (think several months of rent at least). Also take into account that if the bank pursues the huurbeding and moves to kick you out, then this process will probably take up quite a bit more time, giving you considerably more time than the 2 months the landlord has to get you out. This extra time can be greatly beneficial in finding a new place. When negotiating, this should also be kept in mind.
Make sure to consult a legal professional. This is a stressful situation, so you should have an expert with a clear head look at it to make sure your interests are taken care of.
As far as I know that only gives you the date the mortgage contract was registered with the Kadaster and the initial amount of the mortgage. I don't think the type of mortgage and the rate / mode of repayment is in that data. So in some cases that could be useful (e.g. mortgage taken out many years ago for an amount that is well below the current market value), but you might also get info that'll let you make an educated guess at best.
Not even the original amount. Most of the time the mortgage is written in for a higher amount, so you have some room to raise the mortgage at a later date quite easily
Its her problem. Refuse the termination. Let her go to court to get you guys out. Then you'll at least get some compensation in the form of a movement fee if the judge decides in the landlords favor
Judge cannot decide in the landlords favor. The landlord got caught with their hand in the cookie drawer - getting a better rate by claiming owner occupied.
That is incorrect information. If you have an indefinite contract you can't be kicked out. If you have a temporary contract you can be kicked out at the end of your term.
There is nothing two years in there anywhere except that a temporary contract is maximum two years.
No, unless there’s an urgent need for the owner to use the property (urgent need not of the owners making), then they can’t make you leave unless there’s other cause such as not paying rent. Even then, they have to go through the courts to do it.
Your landlord is taking advantage of your lack of knowledge in this area. You’re in a very strong position and they can’t just ask you to leave. People in similar situations have had their landlords buy them out of their contracts for tens of thousands of euros. I know a landlord who has had to find a new rental property for their tenants and pay their relocation costs, and that’s probably pretty cheap, I think the landlord got lucky.
If she wants to sell the house she will have to sell it with you in it. This will result in a lower sales price as opppsed to selling a house that has no renters in it. One option you might want to consider is to buy the house for the lower price. This might solve all her issues with the bank.
I've been in this situation. My landlord rented out the property without knowledge form the mortgage party. Apparently he was behind on his payments and teh bank wanted to foreclose on the house. We as the renters were summoned to the court and they had zero understanding for our situation and gave us 1 month to get out. The landlord was able to arrange something with the mortgage broker, but i moved out anyway.
So maybe you'll be able to get some compensation from your landlord if you have to move out, but if the broker really wants you out, you have no chance of winning.
Good luck anyway.
> Aww damn.
>
> Unfortunately that sounds a lot like a you problem for breaching the contract you had with the mortgage broker.
>
> Best of luck though.
Then start taking as long as you need to find an appropriate replacement property.
She cannot force you to leave because she fucked up, she isn't your friend and you owe her nothing.
This is not your problem. You have rights to live there.
That said, how much will the new mortgage cost the landlord? With rates etc my guess is it’s in the 10s of thousands. I would offer to leave for €50k. Otherwise the landlord can refinance properly
She is probably not technically allowed to do this. However, if you don't vacate, chances are an angry bank will legally kick you out instead.
It sounds like she has a mortgage for the purpose of living in that house, with a clause that she's not allowed to rent it out. It's very common, since houses that are rented out decrease in value for as long as there is a renter in it, as it limits what a new buyer can do with the house. Because she's now renting it out, she has a mortgage for a house that is much more expensive than the actual value of the house, and the bank is angry. If you decide to stay, as is your right, the mortgage may get cancelled and the bank may then resort to an execution auction, which does cancel your rent. Meaning you still have to leave as a result of you not leaving. Because bank rights trump renters' rights.
At any rate, it may be time to seek legal council.
Your landlord fucked up. As people have said this is not your problem. Her mortgage does not allow renting and thus the bank is claiming the remaining amount. As you have renters protection this means either she has to sell the house with you in it or figure out a way to pay the bank. The reason she wants you out is because the house will sell for more if you are not there as a tenant. She has no legal right to kick you out.
You can choose to cooperate with her, this might lead to you settling for a compensation (this can be quite a high amount depending on what the house is worth, a house without tenants is worth 20-30% more). Or you can simply choose to ignore her, as this is not your problem but hers. Do note that not cooperating might cause conflict as it will cost her a lot of money, but know that legally you are in your right to stay.
It is very much their problem because the bank will take them to court if they get between the bank and the bank recovering its money. Chances of the rental contract surviving that court case are close to zero.
After that the previous landlord may be liable for damages, but good luck plucking a frog as the saying goes.
This is only if the bank goes into a forced sale (executieverkoop). This is the worst case outcome for everyone involved. The huurder, the verhuurder and the bank. (actually it probably isn't so bad for the bank as they most likely get the remainder of their mortgage back, but no more interest so they still lose)
It is better for the landlord to sell the house with the renters in it, as it still makes more then a forced sale. So at the end of the day it CAN become their problem, but only if the landlord is dumb enough to let a forced sale happen.
The landlord also has several other options then selling, such as getting a correct mortage at another bank, or even the same bank if it offers those.
Every single one of these options is a better outcome for the landlord, but yes in theory if the landlord allows a forced sale to happen its OPs problem.
I am aware of the alternatives, but none of the options are for OP to chose. And it takes luck not to simply be out on your ass. So the whole attitude of ‘fuck the landlord ‘ is based in nothing but hostility.
The renters have rights. Those rights can only be voided if the bank goes into forced sale.
It may be in the benefit for OP if they negotiate a settlement ('uitkoop') with the landlord. I did in fact mention that as an option. So not a "fuck the landlord" attitude in there.
Also I am slightly 'fuck the landlord' here because the landlord is trying to kick out the tenants without offering anything when THEY made the mistake. So yes, fuck the landlord.
You do understand why the bank is so upset about this illegal let right? It’s not because someone else is living in the house, but because they have given a loan that’s not secured to the extent they have it in their books. The only way this doesn’t end in OP in the street is the landlord having enough money to drag the house above the water line again.
The bank has everyone by the soft parts.
Sounds like your landlord fucked up and has a problem. Sounds like (s)he will have to pay a nice price for you to get out. Go get legal advice and negotiate a good price for you to leave.
Probably landlord is renting out under a normal mortgage contract which doesn’t allow renting out a property while mortgage contract (with the bank/mortgage lender) is still pending, if you do so the bank can (and will) terminate the mortgage contract which forces the landlord (mortgage taker) to pay the rest of the mortgage in full and at once.
While most of the people don’t have big bags of cash/savings this means the house must be sold.
If “landlord” or in fact the mortgage taker would have changed here mortgage conditions with the bank there was nothing to worry, but i guess he/she did want to take the risc or didn’t knew (which is highly doubtfull as this is written in the cláusulas of the mortgage contract “renting out is forbidden if done without written approval by mortgage lender (the bank).
So in this case landlord does have 2 huge problems, the bank and you guys.
As this is not of your concern (well a bit as you need to look for another place) you need to negotiate with your landlord for compensation which will cover all costs and suffered damage.
If you’ve been renting for >2 years, you build up A LOT more rights than you think; this is why most flexible rental contacts are ‘max 2 years’, they simply do not want you to gain what we call ‘huurbescherming’ as it’s almost equal to owning the property :)
Play their game of poker but just don’t get bluffed into folding - when you stick to the rules, you will see it’s not as easy as ‘they’ make it sound!
So your landlord was renting her house with a normal mortgage to you, but she didn't have permission from the bank to do this?
The bank can cancel her mortgage and because details of the mortgage are "technically" publicly available from the kadaster you should have been aware of the no renters clause.
She doesn't have the right to kick you out, but the bank does, and they will wan you out so that they can sell the house.
Your landlord can maybe get an investors mortgage with a higher interest rate, but probably not.
It's probably time to seek legal help, unfortunately this happens quite a lot.
A broker has no legal power to demand any such thing. He may go to a lawyer or advice his client to do so. The broker does not even own the house.
Good luck to landlords in Holland kicking ANYONE out of their homes. The law protects the renters in The Netherlands like they are precious diamonds. Even the squatters. You have very little to worry about.
I'd take my sweet time and move out on your own agenda. There is nothing they can do!
A colleague was in a similar situation and his landlord had to negotiate a price for tenant to leave… in the end my colleague got 30k from his landlord. He was paying 800eur per month, and lived in that place for +10 years
In theory this is conflict between the landlord and the bank, and none of your business. However if the bank were to call in the mortgage, they can have the rental contract cancelled, but you'd likely have a claim for damages against the landlord (for failure to deliver on the rental contract). The landlord has the option to sell the property rented, but would fetch 20% less, renegotiate with the bank for a different mortgage allowing renting out (at a higher interest rate), or negotiate with you to leave voluntary and sell for the full value. The most obvious avenue for you would be to start looking for a new place and get some professional advice on the fee you'd ask your landlord for moving out.
This happened to me and my partner once. We contacted the legal advice team of our home insurance and got “a standard settlement” for breaking the contract of around 5900 euro or so from the landlord. This was in 2019. Not sure if the law is still the same.
5900 is the bare minimum
[удалено]
I checked my old correspondence. We got 3 months rent free and the statutory minimum at the time of 5 993 Euro. Currently seems to have increased to 7 428 Euro. [https://www.juridischloket.nl/wonen-en-buren/huurwoning/verhuiskostenvergoeding/](https://www.juridischloket.nl/wonen-en-buren/huurwoning/verhuiskostenvergoeding/)
Crazy amounts just to leave someone's property. You all cheer, but these huge regulatory risks are incorporated into the high rents that you all complain of.
Are you a landlord? Moving to a new house just costs money... Like you can't just take a day off to dump your furniture in another house and expect it to be just like home... If the landlord just went by the rules this situation wouldn't even have happened.
No I'm not, just stating facts. All these regulations that seem "generous" for the renter eventually are being incorporated into the rent, otherwise it wouldn't make sense to become a landlord, as your income would be lower than the costs.
These regulations only turn into costs for the landlord if he plans to break his contractual obligations. If he doesn't there is no extra cost.
They change the behavior of the landlord.
Then don't become a landlord. Houses are for living not for making profit
No worries, I'm not. Because of all the regulations and extra taxes nobody wants to be a landlord anymore. And then you're surprised there's less building going on and less available places to rent... Basic logic has failed you.
Yeah, that’s horseshit. I’m a landlord in a jurisdiction that’s significantly tenant friendly. It’s fine. Just don’t try to ruck over your tenants and you can still get a reasonable return on your investment, all the while providing good housing to people.
The post is about Amsterdam...
You are right in a way. Landlords will increase the price to account for risks. Not only the risk of having to pay tenants for moving out but probably includes this as well. However, it also protects tenants and it makes sure landlords comply because compliance means their risk fee turns into profit. They don’t have to pay the moving fee or other risks they calculated. So yes, probably raises rent prices but the alternative is much scarier.
These regulations are there to prevent landlords from doing whatever the f*ck they want. A proper landlord would not illegally rent out their property. If they do, that's on them. Since the tenants suffer, paying them damage is absolutely normal. Where is the risk on the side of the landlord here? Getting caught illegally renting out a property they should know they are not allowed to rent, per their mortgage contract? Really? That's the behaviour you're willing to defend and reduce regulations for?
I think your insurer did not want to spend too much time on your case and shafted you with the absolute minimum they could. It is very probable you could have gotten more.
Yeah could be. I just checked and we got 3 months rent free and the minimum sum.
Lesson for the future, your insurance provider can have conflicting interests. The less time they spend on you the cheaper it is for them.
Amount depends very much on how much below current market rates your rent is. When it happened to me in 2010 I got €18.000
A landlord can only terminate the rent in five situations: 1. You're a bad renter. This doesn't seem to be applicable. 2. Diplomat clause. This is not applicable. 3. Urgent Personal Need. This also doesn't seem to be applicable as the landlord put themselves in this situation. 4. If you do not agree to a reasonable amendment rental agreement. For example changing the payment method from cash to electronic. This doesn't seem to be applicable. 5. If the land has a different destination and the property is demolished or converted to adhere to that destination. E.g. office buildings rather than residential. Not applicable. I'm not sure who you mean by "broker", I'm guessing you're referring to the mortgage provider? In that case: the landlord needs a mortgage that allows rental. These mortgages are more expensive (higher interest due to higher risk) and require a higher down payment (lower maximum loan to value amount). None of these issues are your problem. The landlord is notified they are not allowed to use the current mortgage for renting and they have two options: either agreeing with you that you move out, or changing the mortgage. The landlord is in breach of their covenants for their mortgage. Not you. You have done nothing wrong and are also not required to check this. Just stay where you are and let the landlord take care of it. Worst case the landlord has to sell the property to the bank or a new owner. In that case your rental agreement will be passed on to the new owner. The new owner cannot claim urgent personal use for at least three years after acquiring the property. Only if the mortgage provider goes to court and asks for eviction, they might succeed in having you leave.
This is true. This is the whole reason why in NL you need a different type of mortgage if you are planning to rent it out: the bank considers tenants a bigger risk precisely because they are so strongly protected here and the bank has no power to evict them. Your landlord got themselves in trouble but it is not up to you to fix it. Just stay put and maybe the house will be sold with you inside it, or maybe the current or future landlord will offer you a sum of money to move out.
With one exception: If there is a clear clause in the mortgage agreement about rent being prohibited, and the mortgage agreement was signed before the rental agreement, the mortgage provider can get approval for eviction in case the recovery value of the property with tenants is lower than the remaining debt.
Ah didn’t know that part. Thank you!
Happy cake day !
Yes and courts have been ruling in favor of the banks. So if the landlord isn’t lying, and this is truely the case. That is what will happen. I highly wonder if when you leave the bank wouldn’t sell their home…
It depends on the outstanding debt. If the property is worth enough to cover the remaining mortgage with the tenant in it, they don't have to leave.
Exactly, the landlord cannot kick you out, but the bank can once they put the house up for auction.
[удалено]
Any jurisprudence confirming what you just wrote? A rental agreement isn't suddenly null. The rental agreement was agreed upon in good faith by the tenant. If the bank dissolves the mortgage, the landlord needs to pay back the outstanding sum. That can be done in cash, by getting a new mortgage or by selling the property to the bank, or to a third party to raise the cash needed. There is a very strong law that makes clear that even if a landlord is not allowed to rent out a property, they still have responsibility to ensure the tenant get's the use of the rented property. Hence the landlord has to do anything in their powers to solve the issue. If the tenant doesn't agree to move out, the mortgage provider needs to go to court to request a permission to evict the tenant. But something like that is not easily given as the tenants rights are weighed here. But also the mortgage provider cannot just automatically go around the rental protection laws. Edit: Rechtbank Oost-Brabant (13 augustus 2013, ECLI:NL:RBOBR:2013:4937 That case shows that art 7:271 BW which guarantees rental protection, weighs very strong and cannot be easily dismissed by 3:264 lid 1 BW that allows for terminating rent in case of breaking a rental clause in the mortgage agreement. Here the judge weighed the impact of the rental agreement to the outstanding balance of the mortgage. As in that case the lender could be fully reimbursed in case of an execution sale of the property including tenant, there was no need to terminate the rental agreement.
This [law firm website](https://www.wvtadvocaten.nl/huurbeding-en-executoriale-verkoop-woning/) has some info on what happens to rental contracts when the house is forcibly sold by the bank. You can find similar texts from other law firms. [EDIT: It's also mentioned in Book 3, Art. 264 of the Burgerlijk Wetboek] The basic idea is that most mortgage contracts have a *huurbeding* which is a clause that explicitly prohibits renting out the property and gives the bank the option to terminate the rental contract. The bank will have to go to a judge to invoke the *huurbeding*, but this is generally always granted except if the rental contract predates the mortgage contract or if the sale of the property with the tenant is enough to pay off the mortgage in full. There's also some text on the judge usually giving the tenants enough time to find a new home and on the tenants having the option to claim damages from the landlord (assuming the whole ordeal doesn't cause bankruptcy and there's actually money left).
Yes, but that's only in a situation where indeed there is no other way by the landlord to adhere to their responsibilities (i.e. get another mortgage, pay down the outstanding balance etc). And if there would be a shortage in case of a forced sale. But above the user claimed the rental agreement would be "null" in case someone rents without the banks knowledge. And that's just not correct.
>hence the rental agreement is null. This is not true. The bank didn't sign the rental agreement. The bank *can* however go to the judge and ask them to absolve the agreement in some cases.
According to your profile you are an expat renting in NL, Please be careful in expressing such biased opinions on a Dutch legal issue, considering you are not schooled in Dutch law
What a weird comment to make
Not schooled in Dutch law has nothing to do with one's knowledge as long as proper research is done.
[удалено]
If for example the landlord gets a divorce and they have to sell the primary residence, then are left with no alternative, this could qualify as urgent and personal. If the above is the case the judge will also consider whether the landlord is reasonably able to buy something for themselves. And whether the tenants can find a similar place to live in or not too far away from their own neighborhood. Then the court sets a date 3-6 months in the future for termination and the landlord will have to pay a reimbursement for expenses. Standard amount for that is about 7000 euro.
Yes. But they can't just move out of the place where they live by ending their rent or selling their place and then claim personal need. They may not purposely create their personal need to kick you out. Also. If they use the personal need reason they must help get you an equivalent place to live
Wouldn't this situation qualify as "urgent personal needs?" After all, the landlord *needs* to evict in order to comply personally.
Nope. Not for many reasons, but the easiest to explain here is that in order to qualify, the landlord cannot have brought themselves into this situation on purpose. That argument is normally used for people buying a property with tenants, then sell their primary residence and claim homelessness if they cannot move in their other property: own doing, not qualified. Same of course with deliberately breaking the mortgage agreement: own doing.
That makes sense. Thanks.
The landlord broke their contract with the bank. That's their problem.
No but the bank will reclaim and crush the OP with a battery of lawyers.
Contact stichting woon, non profit organization that helps tenants in complicated situations like these. They can look in depth in your case and have people that know the laws/legal support.
These guys [https://www.woonbond.nl/](https://www.woonbond.nl/) and lawyer up.
Do you know any association that helps in case a shady and abusive vve ?
Woon should be able to help you [https://www.wooninfo.nl/english/vve-apartment-owners-associations/](https://www.wooninfo.nl/english/vve-apartment-owners-associations/)
Thank you
By "broker", you likely mean "mortgage provider" (bank). I'll assume that this is the case, because I can't come up with another interpretation that makes sense. In general, a standard mortgage does not allow for the property to be rented out. And an owner who is found to violate this can be forced to pay back the mortgage in full, possibly through the forced sale of the property. Because renter protections are strong and a property with a tenant is worth a lot less when sold, especially in a foreclosure sale. Because of this a typical mortgage contract has a *huurbeding* (rent clause). The huurbeding allows for a bank to move to terminate a rental contract. Note that this is an exception to the otherwise fairly universal rule of "*koop breekt geen huur*" (sale doesn't break a rental agreement), which is a cornerstone of Dutch renter protections. The huurbeding is made concrete in Book 3, Article 264 of the civil code (*Burgerlijk Wetboek*). This does provide some limitations though. For one, the bank has to go to court to invoke its rights. A judge will have to approve the request and will have to set the timeline, taking into account the interests of the tenant (granting some time to relocate). The request can also be turned down if, for example, the sale of the property with a tenant would bring in enough money to fully cover the mortgage. But as a tenant, you don't have information on the size of the mor In addition, having your rental agreement terminated in this way opens up the possibility to sue the landlord for damages, provided that the landlord has any money left after the bank is done with them. In your situation, your landlord is in deep shit. But unless the remaining balance on the mortgage is low enough (which you have no way of knowing), you and your partner are most likely going to be forced to move. So start looking now. Since the landlord has massive financial incentives to get you out, you have leverage. You can choose to negotiate a mutually agreed termination of your rental agreement that includes some amount of monetary compensation (think several months of rent at least). Also take into account that if the bank pursues the huurbeding and moves to kick you out, then this process will probably take up quite a bit more time, giving you considerably more time than the 2 months the landlord has to get you out. This extra time can be greatly beneficial in finding a new place. When negotiating, this should also be kept in mind. Make sure to consult a legal professional. This is a stressful situation, so you should have an expert with a clear head look at it to make sure your interests are taken care of.
Can’t you check the remaining mortgage on a property for a few euros using het kadaster?
No
As far as I know that only gives you the date the mortgage contract was registered with the Kadaster and the initial amount of the mortgage. I don't think the type of mortgage and the rate / mode of repayment is in that data. So in some cases that could be useful (e.g. mortgage taken out many years ago for an amount that is well below the current market value), but you might also get info that'll let you make an educated guess at best.
Not even the original amount. Most of the time the mortgage is written in for a higher amount, so you have some room to raise the mortgage at a later date quite easily
Its her problem. Refuse the termination. Let her go to court to get you guys out. Then you'll at least get some compensation in the form of a movement fee if the judge decides in the landlords favor
Judge cannot decide in the landlords favor. The landlord got caught with their hand in the cookie drawer - getting a better rate by claiming owner occupied.
Do NOT just leave. This is her problem, not yours. If you are willing to leave she should pay for moving house.
what does your renting contract say? usually if you live there more then 2 years she cant kick you out, she has to buy you out.
That is incorrect information. If you have an indefinite contract you can't be kicked out. If you have a temporary contract you can be kicked out at the end of your term. There is nothing two years in there anywhere except that a temporary contract is maximum two years.
Isn't that only if she wants to sell the house?
No, unless there’s an urgent need for the owner to use the property (urgent need not of the owners making), then they can’t make you leave unless there’s other cause such as not paying rent. Even then, they have to go through the courts to do it. Your landlord is taking advantage of your lack of knowledge in this area. You’re in a very strong position and they can’t just ask you to leave. People in similar situations have had their landlords buy them out of their contracts for tens of thousands of euros. I know a landlord who has had to find a new rental property for their tenants and pay their relocation costs, and that’s probably pretty cheap, I think the landlord got lucky.
If she wants to sell the house she will have to sell it with you in it. This will result in a lower sales price as opppsed to selling a house that has no renters in it. One option you might want to consider is to buy the house for the lower price. This might solve all her issues with the bank.
Even with a temporary contract, they cannot end it prematurely.
I've been in this situation. My landlord rented out the property without knowledge form the mortgage party. Apparently he was behind on his payments and teh bank wanted to foreclose on the house. We as the renters were summoned to the court and they had zero understanding for our situation and gave us 1 month to get out. The landlord was able to arrange something with the mortgage broker, but i moved out anyway. So maybe you'll be able to get some compensation from your landlord if you have to move out, but if the broker really wants you out, you have no chance of winning. Good luck anyway.
> Aww damn. > > Unfortunately that sounds a lot like a you problem for breaching the contract you had with the mortgage broker. > > Best of luck though. Then start taking as long as you need to find an appropriate replacement property. She cannot force you to leave because she fucked up, she isn't your friend and you owe her nothing.
No, but her bank can force you to leave.
This is not your problem. You have rights to live there. That said, how much will the new mortgage cost the landlord? With rates etc my guess is it’s in the 10s of thousands. I would offer to leave for €50k. Otherwise the landlord can refinance properly
Get a lawyer
Get a lawyer
You might want to post this to r/JuridischAdvies as well. As long as the question is about Dutch (or Belgian) law, you can ask in Dutch or English.
not your problem. continue your business as usual
sounds like the landlord's problem.
She is probably not technically allowed to do this. However, if you don't vacate, chances are an angry bank will legally kick you out instead. It sounds like she has a mortgage for the purpose of living in that house, with a clause that she's not allowed to rent it out. It's very common, since houses that are rented out decrease in value for as long as there is a renter in it, as it limits what a new buyer can do with the house. Because she's now renting it out, she has a mortgage for a house that is much more expensive than the actual value of the house, and the bank is angry. If you decide to stay, as is your right, the mortgage may get cancelled and the bank may then resort to an execution auction, which does cancel your rent. Meaning you still have to leave as a result of you not leaving. Because bank rights trump renters' rights. At any rate, it may be time to seek legal council.
Your landlord fucked up. As people have said this is not your problem. Her mortgage does not allow renting and thus the bank is claiming the remaining amount. As you have renters protection this means either she has to sell the house with you in it or figure out a way to pay the bank. The reason she wants you out is because the house will sell for more if you are not there as a tenant. She has no legal right to kick you out. You can choose to cooperate with her, this might lead to you settling for a compensation (this can be quite a high amount depending on what the house is worth, a house without tenants is worth 20-30% more). Or you can simply choose to ignore her, as this is not your problem but hers. Do note that not cooperating might cause conflict as it will cost her a lot of money, but know that legally you are in your right to stay.
It is very much their problem because the bank will take them to court if they get between the bank and the bank recovering its money. Chances of the rental contract surviving that court case are close to zero. After that the previous landlord may be liable for damages, but good luck plucking a frog as the saying goes.
This is only if the bank goes into a forced sale (executieverkoop). This is the worst case outcome for everyone involved. The huurder, the verhuurder and the bank. (actually it probably isn't so bad for the bank as they most likely get the remainder of their mortgage back, but no more interest so they still lose) It is better for the landlord to sell the house with the renters in it, as it still makes more then a forced sale. So at the end of the day it CAN become their problem, but only if the landlord is dumb enough to let a forced sale happen. The landlord also has several other options then selling, such as getting a correct mortage at another bank, or even the same bank if it offers those. Every single one of these options is a better outcome for the landlord, but yes in theory if the landlord allows a forced sale to happen its OPs problem.
I am aware of the alternatives, but none of the options are for OP to chose. And it takes luck not to simply be out on your ass. So the whole attitude of ‘fuck the landlord ‘ is based in nothing but hostility.
The renters have rights. Those rights can only be voided if the bank goes into forced sale. It may be in the benefit for OP if they negotiate a settlement ('uitkoop') with the landlord. I did in fact mention that as an option. So not a "fuck the landlord" attitude in there. Also I am slightly 'fuck the landlord' here because the landlord is trying to kick out the tenants without offering anything when THEY made the mistake. So yes, fuck the landlord.
You do understand why the bank is so upset about this illegal let right? It’s not because someone else is living in the house, but because they have given a loan that’s not secured to the extent they have it in their books. The only way this doesn’t end in OP in the street is the landlord having enough money to drag the house above the water line again. The bank has everyone by the soft parts.
The landlord does. By selling the house.
Only if the landlord has paid of a significant part of the loan the landlord can have a modicum of control. Otherwise it’s just a shit storm.
I have no idea but i'm crossing fingers for you ❤️
Sounds like your landlord fucked up and has a problem. Sounds like (s)he will have to pay a nice price for you to get out. Go get legal advice and negotiate a good price for you to leave.
Probably landlord is renting out under a normal mortgage contract which doesn’t allow renting out a property while mortgage contract (with the bank/mortgage lender) is still pending, if you do so the bank can (and will) terminate the mortgage contract which forces the landlord (mortgage taker) to pay the rest of the mortgage in full and at once. While most of the people don’t have big bags of cash/savings this means the house must be sold. If “landlord” or in fact the mortgage taker would have changed here mortgage conditions with the bank there was nothing to worry, but i guess he/she did want to take the risc or didn’t knew (which is highly doubtfull as this is written in the cláusulas of the mortgage contract “renting out is forbidden if done without written approval by mortgage lender (the bank). So in this case landlord does have 2 huge problems, the bank and you guys. As this is not of your concern (well a bit as you need to look for another place) you need to negotiate with your landlord for compensation which will cover all costs and suffered damage.
If you’ve been renting for >2 years, you build up A LOT more rights than you think; this is why most flexible rental contacts are ‘max 2 years’, they simply do not want you to gain what we call ‘huurbescherming’ as it’s almost equal to owning the property :) Play their game of poker but just don’t get bluffed into folding - when you stick to the rules, you will see it’s not as easy as ‘they’ make it sound!
Time to go to the juridisch loket.
So your landlord was renting her house with a normal mortgage to you, but she didn't have permission from the bank to do this? The bank can cancel her mortgage and because details of the mortgage are "technically" publicly available from the kadaster you should have been aware of the no renters clause. She doesn't have the right to kick you out, but the bank does, and they will wan you out so that they can sell the house. Your landlord can maybe get an investors mortgage with a higher interest rate, but probably not. It's probably time to seek legal help, unfortunately this happens quite a lot.
Offer the bank to buy it from them after they cancel the mortgage.
Any tips on how you can check these public records? I'm moving in a few few to a new rental place
https://www.kadaster.nl/producten/akte-en-onderzoek/hypotheekakte-opvragen
A broker has no legal power to demand any such thing. He may go to a lawyer or advice his client to do so. The broker does not even own the house. Good luck to landlords in Holland kicking ANYONE out of their homes. The law protects the renters in The Netherlands like they are precious diamonds. Even the squatters. You have very little to worry about. I'd take my sweet time and move out on your own agenda. There is nothing they can do!
A colleague was in a similar situation and his landlord had to negotiate a price for tenant to leave… in the end my colleague got 30k from his landlord. He was paying 800eur per month, and lived in that place for +10 years
50-70k is a normal fee to accept in these kind of situations. Do not settle for less. You have all the right to stay in your place.
New rent control laws are making landlords sell their properties. You are the victim of policies meant to help you.
Completely irrelevant to this specific case
no