Should landlords tolerate more nuisance from students than from other tenants?
Last month, the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal considered the question of whether a different standard applies to students than to non-student tenants when assessing breaches of the tenancy agreement.
The crux of the matter
This case concerned a student house in which the tenants each rented a room in the building. The rented property had been used as a fraternity house since 1965.
The landlord sought the dissolution of the tenancy agreements and eviction from the rented property in the subdistrict court because, in his opinion, the tenants had failed to comply with the tenancy agreements. According to the landlord, there was nuisance, overcrowding and excessive use of the rented property, repeated obstruction of escape routes and fire hose reels, even after warnings, violation of the Opium Act by having two laughing gas tanks on the premises, and poor and/or delayed payment behaviour.
Judgment of the district court
The district court dismissed the claim. According to the district court, the standard of the average tenant did not automatically apply to the tenants with regard to causing nuisance. The standard had to allow for a different threshold for student accommodation, because the lifestyle of students, and possibly in particular of fraternity members, differs from that of other tenants. The district court also indicated that, in terms of cleanliness, a student house, and perhaps in particular a fraternity house, did not have to be assessed against the standard of an average tenant.
The landlord disagreed with this “student standard” applied by the district court and lodged an appeal. The landlord considered the student standard applied by the district court to be undefined and not based on the law. A lower limit had been mentioned, namely that “not virtually every (student-like) behaviour must be tolerated”, but this did not determine where the limit lay. Moreover, a sliding scale would arise if a circumstance relating to the person or situation of the tenant determined the standard against which the failure to comply should be assessed. The personal circumstances of the tenant could be taken into account in the “unless” clause of Article 6:265 of the Dutch Civil Code, but not in the question of whether there was a failure to comply in itself.
Decision of the Court of Appeal: no student standard
The Court of Appeal (see ECLI:NL:GHARL:2025:7901) ruled in favour of the landlord:
"When assessing whether there has been a failure to comply, no different standard applies to students (from a student house or fraternity house) than to non-student tenants. No different standard applies to students with regard to causing nuisance or failing to keep a property clean. When assessing whether termination of the agreement is justified (the “unless” provision of Section 6:265(1) of the Dutch Civil Code), a judge may take into account all the circumstances of the case, including the status of the tenant."
The Court further ruled that the tenants' failure to fulfil their obligations had been sufficiently established. The district court had already established that there had been nuisance and that the rented property had not been kept sufficiently clean and tidy. Unlike the district court, the Court of Appeal also noted the obstruction of escape routes as a breach of the obligations under tenancy law.
According to the landlord, the district court had wrongly assessed whether the obstruction was “dangerous”, whereas any obstruction or blockage of an escape route is by definition dangerous. The landlord referred to Article 6.23a of the Building Environment Decree (Bbl), which stipulates that objects that obstruct escape are understood to mean “in any case (...) objects that restrict the structural width of the traffic area, unless at least 0.85 m of width remains available”. In addition, Article 6.13D of the general terms and conditions of tenancy, which were declared applicable to all tenancy agreements of the tenants, stipulated that the tenants had to keep all corridors and escape routes free of bicycles, furniture and other obstacles and/or goods. The court agreed with the landlord that the tenants had (and have) an obligation to keep all corridors and escape routes free of obstacles. It was not stipulated that blocking a corridor or obstructing an escape route is permitted as long as it does not pose a danger.
Finally, the landlord found it incomprehensible that the district court had ruled that the tenants had not failed to fulfil their obligations under tenancy law because of the presence of (empty) laughing gas tanks in the rented property. The possession of a laughing gas tank is prohibited under the Opium Act, and the possession of explosive goods in the rented property is also not permitted under Article 6.13B of the general rental conditions.
The landlord was also successful on this point.
The court ruled that it is common knowledge that the presence of an empty laughing gas tank in a home poses an explosion hazard, because in the event of a fire, a tank can come under extra pressure due to heat and explode. The fact that in this case there were no more than two laughing gas tanks in the rented property at the same time did not alter this.
Conclusion
The appeal was successful and the termination of the tenancy agreements and eviction from the rented property were granted.
The question of whether there has been a breach of a tenancy agreement must therefore be assessed objectively. No different standard applies to student or fraternity houses. The status of the tenant (in this case a student) may then play a role in determining whether the termination is justified.
Do you have any questions or would you like advice on nuisance or other tenancy issues? Please feel free to contact one of our solicitors. We are happy to be of service!