Owner of seven owner-occupied properties evicted from social housing

The debate surrounding social housing is increasingly focusing on the tenant’s own financial means. For a long time, it was straightforward: once someone had a social housing tenancy, they could keep it for virtually as long as they wished. That picture is beginning to change. A recent ruling by the Amsterdam District Court shows that a tenancy agreement for a social housing flat can be terminated by a housing association if the tenant themselves owns significant property. This is a development to keep a close eye on.

The crux of the case

A couple in Amsterdam-West had been living in a social housing flat let by the Ymere housing association for 33 years, paying a rent of around 670 euros a month. In the meantime, the man and his wife had built up a substantial portfolio: seven owner-occupied properties and, in addition, five commercial premises. When the housing association became aware of this, it terminated the tenancy agreement at the end of last year. The reason: according to Ymere, the couple no longer belong to the target group for which social housing is intended. The tenants did not take this lying down and took the matter to court.

The central question in these proceedings is simple to formulate, but legally complex: is a housing association permitted to terminate a tenancy because the tenant now owns enough property to provide their own accommodation? The court answered that question in the affirmative.

Why the court sided with the housing association

The court followed Ymere’s reasoning that the couple are perfectly capable of meeting their own ‘housing needs’ — legal jargon for: you can move into one of your own properties. The tenants failed to demonstrate that they were unable to move into any of their own properties.

In addition, the judge highlighted an important principle: housing associations are legally obliged to give priority in their housing policy to people who find it difficult or impossible to secure accommodation themselves. The waiting time for social housing in Amsterdam has now risen to more than thirteen years. According to the judge, under certain circumstances, this priority may even mean that a current tenant must make way for a house-hunter on the waiting list.

The interests of both parties were weighed up. The judge explicitly acknowledged that the couple would lose rental income if they were required to move into one of their own properties. The judge also noted that the tenants were well established in the neighbourhood and that the property had been adapted to their situation — including for the use of a wheelchair and a mobility scooter, partly due to the man’s multiple sclerosis and diabetes. Nevertheless, the housing association’s interests carried greater weight.

The tenants’ arguments that they had not belonged to the target group from the outset, and that, moreover, the property was not a genuine social housing tenancy, were rejected by the judge because they had failed to provide sufficient evidence to support those claims.

Not every tenant need fear

It is tempting to conclude from this ruling that every social housing tenant with a slightly higher income or assets is now on the brink of eviction. It is not quite that simple. The court set out clear requirements for the housing association: it must ‘substantiate’ — and, in the event of a substantiated challenge, actually prove — that the tenant in question will ‘have no difficulty finding suitable accommodation’ after leaving the social housing property. In other words, the burden of proof lies squarely with the landlord.

Moreover, this is only the second time a judge has considered such a matter. Previously, in March 2025, a judge ruled that someone who owned and let two (initially even three) properties was also not entitled to social housing. There is therefore as yet no established, well-defined case law on the matter.

The housing association’s perspective

Ymere regards the ruling as confirmation of its own approach. According to the housing association, the court’s position is “crystal clear”: anyone who owns one or more owner-occupied properties no longer belongs to the target group for social housing, and the housing association is therefore entitled to terminate the tenancy agreement so that the property becomes available to someone who is indeed dependent on social housing. Ymere emphasises that it always considers the individual circumstances of each tenant and expects the ruling to provide guidance to other housing associations in similar situations.

The tenant’s perspective

The tenants’ lawyer describes the ruling as disappointing and rightly points out that housing associations terminating tenancy agreements on the grounds of home ownership is ‘a relatively new and certainly not yet established development’.

Policy is ahead of case law

Meanwhile, the council has not been sitting idly by. Zita Pels, the councillor responsible for housing, expresses her satisfaction and highlights an amendment to the housing regulations: since 1 January, you can no longer be allocated a social housing flat if you already own a home. According to her, the ruling makes it easier to address existing cases as well, based on the principle that social housing is intended for those who genuinely need it.

In practical terms, this means that from 2027, house-hunters who own a home will no longer be granted a housing permit for a social housing tenancy. This permit serves as proof that a person meets the eligibility criteria. Exceptions will still be possible, for example for those who have recently divorced or inherited a property. The practical impact, however, remains limited: it is estimated that between 800 and 1,000 social housing tenants also own a property, out of a total of 223,000 social housing units in the city.

Advice

Do you have any questions about the developments mentioned above, or do you have other legal queries regarding tenancy law? Our specialist solicitors will be happy to assist you.