.svg)
Application of the Good Landlord Act: administrative bodies must form their own opinion on the qualification of agreements
At the end of September, the District Court of Overijssel issued an interesting ruling on the application of the Good Landlord Act (Wgv). Since this Act came into force, local authorities have had instruments at their disposal to take action against unscrupulous landlords and undesirable letting practices. Local authorities can take enforcement action either at the request of tenants or on their own initiative.
The introduction of the Wgv has somewhat blurred the distinction between administrative and civil law. Whereas a tenancy is in principle a civil law matter between tenant and landlord, local authorities now have a role in assessing and enforcing the conduct of a landlord within that private law relationship. The ruling of the Overijssel District Court clearly illustrates the blurring of civil and administrative law.
The ruling[1]
In the case in question, a tenant of residential accommodation in a former office building had requested the municipality of Zwolle to take enforcement action on the basis of the Wgv. The tenant claimed that the rent was too high, that he was being intimidated by the landlord and that the landlord was threatening eviction. However, the Municipal Executive of Zwolle (hereinafter: the Municipal Executive) decided not to take enforcement action because it was not established under civil law that there was a tenancy. The Municipal Executive therefore did not proceed to a further substantive assessment of the enforcement request. The tenant appealed against this decision.
The District Court of Overijssel ruled that the council had wrongly failed to form a substantive opinion on the classification of the agreement between the claimant and the party providing the accommodation. In doing so, the council acted contrary to the principle of due care, which requires administrative bodies to gather all necessary information about the relevant facts and interests. According to the court, the council must form its own opinion on the legal classification of the agreement and the resulting legal relationship.
The court pointed out that the Wgv applies to rental situations. It is therefore relevant whether there is a rental agreement. The law itself does not provide its own definition of “rental”, but parliamentary history shows that reference can be made to the Civil Code, in particular Article 7:201 of the Civil Code. The way in which the parties refer to the relationship in the agreement is not decisive for the qualification of an agreement. According to the court, the council must form its own opinion on this.
Administrative bodies in the civil sphere
This ruling is interesting because the court instructs the administrative body to assess a civil law relationship. It is, of course, obvious that the board must check whether the Wgv applies before taking enforcement action. Careful consideration of the facts and interests is also obvious.
Nevertheless, by assessing such a legal relationship, the council is entering into an area that is in principle reserved for the civil court. In most cases, the nature of the rental relationship will be clear, but in situations where the legal relationship is unclear, the council of the municipality concerned must determine whether it is a rental within the meaning of the Civil Code, if it is up to this court.
This can lead to divergent interpretations and uncertainty about the situations in which the Wgv applies. Differences may also arise between municipalities in the way the Wgv is applied, which may affect the legal certainty of tenants and landlords. In addition, a civil court may arrive at a different classification than the municipality has previously done, and possibly also than the administrative court subsequently does, as the latter has jurisdiction when it comes to the application of the Wgv. Such differences in the assessment of the legal relationship can therefore cause confusion among both tenants and landlords about their rights and obligations, lead to disputes, sometimes administrative and civil at the same time, and also cause friction between administrative and civil law practice.
Whether this development will actually cause problems in practice remains to be seen. In any case, the ruling is remarkable.
[1] https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:RBOVE:2025:5637
