Debt assistance and rental: the state of affairs in 2025

Debt assistance and rental: the state of affairs in 2025

Since 2021, landlords have been required to report rent arrears to the municipality in a timely manner. Courts take this reporting obligation seriously: those who fail to report are at risk of having a claim for termination of the lease and eviction denied. However, in 2025, higher courts are warning against overly rigid application of these rules. What does this mean for you as a landlord?

In this blog, we discuss some notable developments in case law since 2023. A follow-up article will provide a practical step-by-step plan for landlords dealing with rent arrears.

The reporting obligation: what exactly does it entail?

Article 2 of the Municipal Debt Assistance Decree (Besluit Gemeentelijke Schuldhulpverlening or ‘Bgs’) states that as soon as there is a rent arrears, the landlord must pass on the tenant's contact details and the amount of the arrears to the municipal debt assistance board (the early warning report), provided that four conditions are met:

1. the landlord has personally contacted the tenant;
2. the tenant has been informed of the options for debt assistance;
3. at least one written reminder has been sent about the payment arrears;
4. in the reminder the landlord has asked the tenant for written permission to provide their contact details to the council, and the tenant has not responded (negatively) to this request.

The conditions are clear, but what does this mean in practice? Below, we discuss a few rulings in which the reporting obligation was specifically addressed.

How do judges rule on the reporting obligation?

Proof of reporting (required)

Many subdistrict courts (kantonrechters) expect the landlord to demonstrate in the summons that the reporting obligation has been complied with. The courts in Amsterdam and North Holland, in particular, insist that compliance with the information and reporting obligation be substantiated with supporting documents, such as a reminder letter sent and proof of registration with the municipality.

Eviction rejected in case of failure to report

There are various rulings in which the requested termination and eviction were refused because the landlord had not reported (in time). For example, on February 12, 2025, the District Court of North Holland denied the claim for termination of the lease agreement despite substantial rent arrears of EUR 13,000. One of the reasons for this was that the landlord had failed to act for a long time and had not fulfilled his obligations to inform the tenant about debt assistance and to register him. [1]

Summons too late or too early: both risky

In March 2024, the Amsterdam District Court ruled that a tenant with rent arrears of more than €5,000 was allowed to remain in the property. The reason for this was that although the landlord had reported the arrears, he had waited too long to issue a summons. Because the landlord “rehashed” the old report, the claim for termination was rejected. [2] This is in line with the idea that a report loses its relevance over time.

Report too old (six-month rule)

In Rotterdam, the subdistrict courts have adopted an explicit policy as of May 2024. This means that if more than six months have elapsed between the early warning report and the summons, the claim for termination will in principle be rejected (the so-called ‘six-month rule’).

Deviations from this rule are possible only if the landlord can demonstrate that there is a valid reason to proceed on the basis of an earlier report.

Report too early (two-month rule)

Conversely, a landlord may not issue a summons too soon after a report. The courts in Rotterdam and Midden-Nederland apply the principle that there must be at least two months between the report to the municipality and the service of the summons (the ‘two-month rule’).

Action by the municipality not at the expense of the landlord

In a ruling of April 2025, the Midden-Nederland District Court ruled that the landlord is not responsible for the lack of action by the municipality in the meantime.

A landlord does not abuse procedural law by issuing a summons after more than two months (in that specific case eleven weeks). This is in line with the policy of the subdistrict courts, even though debt assistance had not yet been initiated at that time. [3]

Strict rules? Court opts for a tailored approach

In a recent ruling, the Court of Appeal of The Hague recognized the importance of swift summons after a report, but ruled that the strict Rotterdam policy “goes too far in general.” The new policy takes too little account of the serious interests of landlords. [4]

In the case in question, the subdistrict court judge had applied the new six-month period without further ado. However, the Court of Appeal ruled that the landlord could not be required to first prove that he was entitled to rely on an older report before the court took the other circumstances of the case into account. The Court of Appeal therefore overturned the judgment and upheld the claim for termination and eviction.

The court must always (even if the tenant does not appear) take all the circumstances of the case into account and may not declare one factor to be decisive in advance. A balancing of interests must always be carried out to assess whether the shortcoming is of sufficient weight to terminate the lease. On the one hand, there is the concrete interest of the tenant in retaining the property; on the other hand, there is the interest of the landlord in regaining the property in the event of a non-paying tenant.

In conclusion

Although all facts and circumstances play a role, landlords are strongly advised to strictly comply with the statutory reporting obligation and the applicable time limits. This will prevent a claim for termination and eviction from failing on a technicality.

Do you have any questions about this topic or other tenancy law issues? Please feel free to contact Fenna Koopman or René Sekeris.

[1] District Court of North Holland, February 12, 2025, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2025:1246.

[2] Amsterdam District Court, March 12, 2024, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2024:1379.

[3] Midden-Nederland District Court, April 9, 2025, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2025:1583.

[4] The Hague Court of Appeal, March 18, 2025, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2025:354.