Renovations in residential complexes regularly lead to tensions between landlords and tenants. What if tenants refuse to cooperate because they first want guarantees about damage, costs or temporary accommodation? This question was central to summary proceedings before the Rotterdam District Court. The preliminary relief judge ruled that renovation must be tolerated and that, if this does not happen, even temporary eviction may follow.

What happened?

Tenants rented an apartment in Rotterdam from a housing association. The housing association in question intended to carry out major renovation work from 12 September 2025, not only in the tenants' apartment but also in a large number of surrounding homes. This included sustainability and safety measures, such as removing the gas connection and installing a heat delivery set, new radiators, fire safety equipment and a new front door.

The housing association had made a renovation proposal to all tenants. More than 70% of the tenants had agreed to this. However, these tenants refused to cooperate unconditionally. The housing association therefore felt compelled to bring summary proceedings to require the tenants to tolerate the work. In the alternative, the housing association requested temporary and/or partial eviction from the flat if cooperation was not forthcoming.

Positions of the parties

The tenants did not oppose the renovation as such, but first wanted an explicit commitment that the housing association would:

• fully reimburse the costs of modifying a custom-made sofa;
• instruct the contractor to move/dismantle the cupboards in the flat at the housing association's expense and risk;
• fully reimburse any damage to the tiling;
• offer accommodation in a care hotel or similar accommodation during the work due to their fragile health.
  ..

According to the housing association, the work was necessary and urgent, and the tenants' refusal to grant access to the flat would lead to delays and considerable financial damage.

Judgment by the preliminary relief judge

The preliminary relief judge stated that Article 7:220 of the Dutch Civil Code obliges tenants to allow the housing association to carry out the work, on condition that a reasonable proposal has been made to all tenants of the apartments in the complex. This was the case here and the proposal had been accepted by more than 70% of the tenants. Tenants had been informed of this and had failed to have it reviewed by the court in a timely manner. This established the reasonableness of the housing association's proposal.

According to the court, the fact that the tenants first wanted far-reaching and explicit guarantees did not detract from their legal obligation to allow the renovation work to be carried out. Moreover, the housing association had already accommodated the tenants by offering compensation for the modification of the sofa and by instructing the contractor to move the cupboards. Furthermore, during the oral hearing, it emerged that the tenants could continue to live in the flat while the work was being carried out, as it was not necessary to replace the toilet, bathroom and kitchen.

The preliminary relief judge therefore ruled that the housing association could not be expected to make all kinds of far-reaching commitments regarding possible compensation for the tenants in the event of actual damage occurring before any damage had actually occurred.

If, after the work had been carried out, damage did in fact occur, the parties could then enter into consultation with each other about possible compensation and the exact amount thereof. If the tenants subsequently did not agree with the compensation (or the amount thereof) offered by the housing association, they were free to initiate legal proceedings in that regard.

The landlord's claims were therefore upheld. The tenants must tolerate the renovation work. If they do not, they must temporarily and/or partially vacate the flat. The eviction period was set at three days after the judgment was served.

Conclusion

This ruling (ECLI:NL:RBROT:2025:10695) emphasizes that tenants cannot simply prevent renovations by demanding extensive guarantees in advance. Once a renovation proposal has been established as reasonable, tenants have a clear obligation to cooperate. Discussions about compensation or additional costs belong after the work has been carried out, not as a precondition.

For landlords, this judgment provides guidance: those who carefully prepare their renovation process and make a reasonable proposal can enforce the work in summary proceedings, if necessary with temporary eviction as a last resort.

Do you have questions about your position or need help with a conflict with your tenant or landlord? Please feel free to contact one of our solicitors. We are happy to be of service!