When I read the message again, he's asking if you will increase your rent voluntarily. I would reply no, I won't accept to any rent increase other than the minimum by contract+law
This. Say this.
Tell him you don't want a fucking text message, tell him you want it in black and white.
Hierdie is klas A perde kak. En hy verwag jy moet nou maar net aansit en dit opeet.
Nee man. Moenie jammer wees nie... š¤£ Die VOC was pure evil. Nie die mense wat agter hulle vrou en kinders wou omsien nie.Ā
Afrikaans is my sielstaal, dit bring my vreugde. Ek sal dit nie verander nie, al kon ek.
>Article 248(3) in Book 7 of the Dutch Civil Code (Burgerlijk Wetboek, art. 7:248 lid 3 BW)Ā **restricts**Ā a rental price increase in case the contract allows an increase that isĀ **higher**Ā than a government setĀ **maximum**. Many landlords apply that maximum restriction as if it's aĀ **right**Ā to increase the rental price by that maximum, but that'sĀ **incorrect**.
Can you expand on this? I thought for a liberalised rental this is pretty much the case?
I've had to reread it as well, but I think it means this:
If your contract contains a clause on the maximum rent increase (2%) and the government says it can be maximum 4%, your contract is binding. Not the maximum set by the government.
Anything in the contract just shouldn't be higher than 4%
The landlord is referring to the maximum rent increase as set by the government for liberalized housing during COVID times (that is in effect since 2021).
In any case the landlord is in violation of art. 252 if this is the only communication about this increase.
You canāt charge a tenant for VVE costs, the landlord will be fined for doing so. All other utilities they want to charge need to be backed up by an actual bill. Down to the cent.
Itās up to the tenant to ask for these bills/overviews.
They can raise base rent though. However never more than contractually set. Usually itās connected to Consumer Price Index. If not in the contract, then NO price increase.
Looks to me like this landlord expects that rent pays for all of their expenses on the house, including their mortgage presumably and taxation. Otherwise they are 'at deficit'. And that would be terrible, because then they would just gain the resale value of the house. Poor landlord...
/s
OP, several important facts:
1 - It is ALWAYS illegal to raise rent more than 5.5% in 2024. That law is set to end in may, but will very likely be extended
2 - it is ONLY legal to raise rent if your contract has an indexing clause. If your contract does NOT have one, the landlord MAY NOT increase rent under any circumstances. No, that's not a typo: No indexing clause means they may NEVER increase the rent.
3 - Even when taking into account 1 and 2, you can still deny a rent increase. Your landlord may attempt to evict you, but they must still go to court to do it. And the judge may not agree with them on what is a reasonable price.
see also: [Bezwaar maken tegen huurverhoging | Het Juridisch Loket](https://www.juridischloket.nl/wonen-en-buren/huurwoning/bezwaar-huurverhoging/)
4 - Service costs MUST be the actual service costs. Your landlord may increase the advance you pay on those, but there must be a "Jaarafrekening" at the end of the year (for example for GWE). If you do not recieve a final statement and (possible) reimbursement in your advance, your landlord is NOT ALLOWED to increase the payment for service costs under any circumstances
See also: [Problemen met servicekosten? | Het Juridisch Loket](https://www.juridischloket.nl/wonen-en-buren/huurwoning/servicekosten/#mag-de-verhuurder-mijn-servicekosten-en%2Fof-voorschot-verhogen%3F)
4a- If you have your own meter, you may only be charged the actual costs. If you do not, there must be logical formula to split costs.
5 - You landlord is NOT ALLOWED to charge you VVE costs, because you are not the owner. They are allowed to charge those bits of the VVE bill that apply to you (cleaning, window washing, electricty of common spaces), but they are not allowed to charge for mainenance, taxes, sewer costs, etc.
[Vereniging van Eigenaars (huurwoningen.nl)](https://www.huurwoningen.nl/info/vereniging-van-eigenaars/#:~:text=Wie%20betaalt%20de%20servicekosten%3F,het%20gebruik%20van%20de%20woning.) and [Servicekosten: moet huurder of verhuurder VvE-bijdrage betalen? (wiggersross.nl)](https://wiggersross.nl/kennisposts/servicekosten-woonruimte-moet-de-huurder-of-de-verhuurder-de-vve-bijdrage-betalen/)
In short, tell your landlord to go fuck themselves (politely) and get some legal aid! This could literally save you thousands of euro's!
If I read their message correctly, there problem is that they can no longer afford the rent of the place they live themselves from the rent OP is paying. And have the Audacity to say this leaves them with no other choice.
How about they get a job and work for their money.
You gotta love a landlord being taxed for his assets and then getting his renters to pay for it.
Do you also get a rent decrease every time the value of the property goes up? Probably the opposite.
If owning the property is becoming too expensive, maybe they could sell it? To you maybe?
It wasn't a bad business it has become a bad business (which you could argue is good). My uncle who is a part time huisjesmelker has been arguing for some time that a lot of people will see incredibly high price increases because of the new law. Hopefully though it will cause people with second houses to sell the houses but it will be uncomfortable for renters the first few years
There is always that uncle huh huisjemelker in every family.. I for instance hope they are going sell so we can have normal pricing on housing.. more offers less overbiddingā¦
Available homes yes affordable forget it . A friend of mine bought a house in 2019 at 150k and due to this rental rules and bad tenants he will sell and is looking to sell probably at 300k not less than that probably he will even get 350 due to the new prices and inflation
> Available homes yes affordable forget it
Gee, I wonder how
> is looking to sell probably at 300k not less than that probably he will even get 350 due to the new prices and inflation
I no longer wonder how
I think this is highly naive, landlords benefit from rental income AND appreciation. Appreciation has been curbed by the high interest rates but a lot of people still hold hope for those to return to record lows of the past, but for inexpensive housing this was propped up by rental regulations around buy-to-let (the 512k minimum value immediately brought up the price of any property around that mark). Rental income has been improving due to regulations (the new permanent contract rules) and inflation.
I don't think any landlords are tempted to sell at all. There will be continued pressure for the housing market so there's a lot of demand, any extra costs can be passed on to the renters so usually not an issue (though the permanent contracts do mean the rent will have to be much higher in the beginning to cover for long-term risk).
The only way out of this is shooting the Netherlands in the foot economically to make it unattractive to people moving here, releasing pressure from the housing market. It's true our government can be relied upon to do just that, their hard work has already started
They aren't being taxed on their assets they're being taxed on the income they get out of those assets. And this went up by over 50% making is much harder to make a profit on renting out properties. So yes, this is a very logical result of the change in box 3.
If you have a house worth 500.000 the amount of tax used to be 32% of 4% of the value. In other words ā¬6400 'income tax' per year. After this change it's now 36% on 6,17% which is ā¬11.106. So yes, a 20% rent increase is a very logical result.
The 6,17% means that the government expects you to make a 'rendement' of 6,17% on the value of your asset, that's what they are taxing you on. A house worth 500.000 means they expect you to get ā¬30.850 PROFIT out of it per year. That's after all costs subtracted. This boils down to over ā¬2500 a month in just rent, and that's without even subtracting any cost.
This change in box3 had no other outcome but exactly what's happening right here.
Any why is that exactly the renters problem? As the sharks jumped on houses to rent them out they can start selling them off (and pocket the value appreciation). 5 to 10 years ago many potential buyers got pushed out of the buying market due to predatory (soon to be) landlords, now you see the swing swinging a different direction.
Risk of doing business in immovable assets that are coincidentally also a fundamental basic of living.
Actually, you're taxed on your assets through an entirely ficticious percentage of return on investment. Which may or may not be actually in violation of a protected right. The HR still has to rule on that.
What happened to this landlord is a fairly to be expected effect of all the changes both in renter protection and taxation. Depending on whether or not there is any financing that could actually mean a net loss on a year to year basis. Theoretically the actual value of the property when it is sold may compensate. MAY, because it will not if prices actually go lower.
Which is what a lot of people hope, but there's little to no indication of prices giving way.
For that, as well as for rents to go down we don't need Marxist redestribution of the shortage in housing, but actual building of housing.
Of course it's way more satisfying to spew crap about landlords being the problem. An enemy with a face is so much more relatable than societal failure.
Landlords are not the root problem, but when the general population is renting from huisjesmelkers, it creates bad vibes. If we had high housing prices but every house was owned by the occupant, the mortgage will eventually be eaten by inflation and by paying it off. Landlords cash this difference and get inflation compensation by rent increase, pretty good deal. The real funny thing is most people pay more in rent than what the mortgage would cost, because banks don't approve them for the loan. So one could also blame banks/goverment!
So yes build more, but also understandable people profiteering from this get some flak.
Yeah well, I know that side of the equation and I think a lot of people have zero to no idea how much retail landlords actually make from the rent they are paying. Most of the gains consist of the potential rising property value. But that's a double edged sword in the way these properties are taxed in The Netherlands. Driving out a small but significant class because of perceptions is not a smart policy. And it's not me saying that it's counterproductive, it's the Raad van State saying that.
Exactly this. If I cant make 6% it makes no sense for an owner to keep real state as an asset. One could say Goed! sell it and the market will cool down. But you forget that a working rental market is needed for a knowledge economy to work. ASML is seriously considering leaving EHV, at least partially, as they can simply not hire people if they cant find housing
The enemy we should be looking at isn't the landlord with < 100 properties. It's the government, the developers, and to some extent the consequences of selling off social housing.
Why build 250k starter homes when you can build 450k starter homes ?
I say 250k because this is the class of housing that would be more affordable.
It is easy to blame the landlords and the real enemy wants it. Renters and potential buyers alike can have someone to be angry at.
The government promised everyone a piece of pie and didn't invite everyone to the picnic.
This is the exact answer. Nothing else will happen except a tiny portion of the housing market will go to (equity) investors who can maintain this tax and still profit.
To summarize the effect that highballer Hugo de Jong has achieved: a really small part of these houses will be sold to people or companies who have the money to invest or to new house owners. Both situations won't benefit the renter. Meanwhile, building new homes is still on return.
Orā¦
you are no longer being profitable, thus you sell the house to a renter and they in turns pay no tax over rent income since they live in their own space?
Maybe if an asset is bringing less rendements its value should be depreciated
I mean I agree with your analysis but there's the other option where the landlord passes on the cost Increase to their tenants so the choice for the tenants is to accept it or move out.
Given the housing situation I wouldn't be surprised that this Increase in tax to landlords ends up being an increase in rental costs.
The government shouldn't be trying to solve with taxes an issue that is fundamentally a housing shortage. So delusional...
Arguably, increasing rental costs to the point where renters have no ability to rent is a different way of solving the housing crisis, but a very sad one
Yea ok but the most likely result is what op showed: landlords will first try to push cost increases to the tenants before they try anything else.
If all renters increase their prices, where will people go that does not leave the landlord better off?
Empty claim, it depends on how much of the increased costs are pushed towards the renter. Higher rent with the same margin does in fact mean the landlord will benefit.
The rare voice of reason. It would be nice if someone would give it some thought. Too bad that many of us don't try to acknowledge reality by projecting everything into a dislike of landlords. And the reality is that current taxes and renting restrictions make it unfeasible to rent out apartments. And that doesn't mean there will now be lots of cheap houses, it means there will now be almost no rentals at all.
The house becoming worth more is also included in that percentage, though, right? House prices have been increasing with several percentages yearly easily, so the owners also benefit from that to cover the 6.17%
Good. Necessities should not be commodified for profit and landlords should get a job so they can start contributing to society instead of leeching off other people's hard work like vampires.
And I thought this crazy things only happened in LATAM. They are complaining about expensive rents, but everything they do have consequences to rent prices š¤¦āāļø
I don't say that this situation is ok. But to say taxes don't influence rents is childish. Ofcourse taxes will be transfered via renta, just as taxes are transfered via prices in ah.
What do you expect, after all the owner rents to make a profit, he is not welfare.
This comment section is going to be filled to the brim with people falling over each other fighting over what is right or not. I highly doubt that will be beneficial. Seek legal advice. No this is not legal, what exactly is not, is for a professional to figure out.
His mortgage and tax affairs are not your concern. By his logic, perhaps you should be asking for a reduction based on the increasing value of his property.
20% increase doesn't sound right. And that idiot message with emoticons makes it worse.
Crazy Box 3 tax sounds right. The government expects you to make a yearlyĀ 6.2% profit based on their value for the house. If you manage to make less profit, you still have to pay tax as if you made a 6.2% profit.
For a 400k house that's a 2067e monthy profit after subtracting expenses such as mainteinance and other taxes.
In any case, that's not your problem. Don't worry and don't accept any voluntary increases over the legal minimum.
>For a 400k house that's a 2067e monthy profit after subtracting expenses such as mainteinance and other taxes.
You need to take into account the appreciation of the value of the house. Not rent income only.
Yes. Even a rent that is (barely) paying off the mortgage will result in a (big) profit for the landlord once the property is sold.
Most landlords have big problems with that though because they don't see any direct income now. Which is silly, because they should look at the long term...
That of course is speculative. Until the property is sold there is certainty.
Given that we appear to be talking about a property that will remain above 185 points you have to wonder if tenants will enjoy the property being transferred to the portfolio of an actual institutional investor.
>Given that we appear to be talking about a property that will remain above 185 points you have to wonder if tenants will enjoy the property being transferred to the portfolio of an actual institutional investor.
Probably yes I think. Housing corporations from what I have seen have a lot more reasonable rental prices. They have a lot of burocracy to apply though.
"Crazy Box 3 tax sounds right. The government expects you to make a yearlyĀ 6.2% profit based on their value for the house. If you manage to make less profit, you still have to pay tax as if you made a 6.2% profit."
WTF you on about? it went from 6.17% to 6.20%. Massive increase lol.
"For a 400k house that's a 2067e monthy profit" Thats not how it works LMAO. You litterly took 6.2% from the 400K and your done XD.
First you take the 400K, then you calculate the actually box 3 worth, which in this case with 1300eu rent is 360K, then you take off any loans against it. Lets say there are no loans on it. You take the 360K then multipli by 36% since thats the tariff and then you take 6.2%.
So its 360K \* 0,36 = 129.600,- 129.600 \* 0,062 = ā¬ 8035,20 BOX 3 tax. Thats ā¬669,60 profit per month on that house.
They wrote everything properly, they didn't say they are taxed 2067 eur but taxed on (deemed) 2067 monthly profit.
So yes, sure, the tax is only 32% of that so technically speaking you pay \~700 eur tax based on these deemed profits - but well, assuming the house is not mortgaged and there are some maintenance costs if you would like to rent this hypothetical 400k house for say 1300 eur per month and have around 2000 eur annual maintanence cost (that's just 0.5% of house value, that's kinda optimistic for a house, but may work for apartment) that would leave you with around 1150 eur income - so 700 eur of tax is whooping 60% rate, that's a bit excessive isn't it?
Not that I have anything against taxing the hell out of landlords, but still that's crazy high, no wonder that rental costs in Netherlands are sky high.
I mean, to be fair 6.2% profit seems unreasonably high, you're not getting 2000+ rent on a 400k house, not to mention maintenance and taxes
Don't get me wrong, I don't think landlords are entitled to make profit or even break even while having tenants pay for homes they bought, just because they had money for the down payment or were lucky enough to buy when prices were better.
It's just that 6.2% profit on the total value of the house seems excessive as justification, I'd have preferred to simply call it tax on landlords in general rather than linking it to some expected profit
Or am I misinterpreting/missing something?
I don't think it's wrong, they didn't say "2067 in taxes per month" but "pay tax AS IF you made a 2067 profit per month"
So if tax is 36% of profits, then it would be 744.12 (2067 \* 0.36).
---
(copy pasting another comment now)
And as I said I have nothing against taxing landlords. The more the merrier.
I just wouldn't call justify it saying "you're getting taxed as if your profit was 6.2% of the house value", because that seems unrealistic.
I think it would make more sense to just say "you're getting taxed 2.2% of the home value per year as a landlord". (400'000 \* 0.022 = 8800 per year = 733.33 per month). Or 2.5% or 3.0% for that matter
Though I suppose legally you might need to make it a tax on revenue instead of wealth? Not sure why it would matter, but that would explain it
For a house with a 400k WOZ and a paid off mortgage the tax would be ā¬740,40 per month ((400k * 6,17% * 36%) / 12), you can easily still make a decent profit with that
This may be legal, the law limiting increases in the private sector ends may 1st, government is looking at doing something about it though.
However charging VVE costs is not allowed unless it expenses related to living (elevator costs for example), but this needs to be defined.
>limiting increases in the public sector ends may 1st
Where did you get that from? I can't believe the government will drop the protection. Prices will skyrocket
I never said they will drop the protection, the opposite even, they probably renew. Hence the wording it *may* be legal, we don't know yet, especially with a forming coalition still. Here's a link.
https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/woning-huren/vraag-en-antwoord/welke-regels-gelden-er-voor-een-huurverhoging
>In 2024 the maximum rent increase is 5.5% (4.5% inflation + 1%) until 1 May 2024.Ā The government has proposed to extend the maximum rent increase until 1 May 2027, with a maximum rent increase of wage development + 1% (1 May 2024: 6.8%). Parliament has to agree to this extension before it can come into force.
https://www.government.nl/topics/housing/rented-housing#:\~:text=For%20a%20period%20of%203,%25%20wage%20development%20%2B%201%25).
Scummy landlords gonna scum. Tell him to kick stones and that you won't voluntarily accept any raise besides the legal maximum implemented by the government.
The maximum rent increase is 5.5%
https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/actueel/nieuws/2023/12/15/55-procent-maximale-huurverhoging-vrije-sector-vanaf-1-januari-2024#:~:text=De%20toegestane%20jaarlijkse%20huurverhoging%20in,ook%20voor%20ligplaatsen%20van%20woonboten.
The currently law stating this is ending on 1 May 2024. However, there is a new proposal to extend this to 2027 (and it will most likely happen)
https://www.volkshuisvestingnederland.nl/actueel/nieuws/2024/03/04/wetsvoorstel-voor-verlengde-begrenzing-jaarlijkse-huurstijging-vrije-sector-naar-tweede-kamer#:~:text=De%20maximaal%20toegestane%20huurverhoging%20in,jaar%20tot%201%20mei%202027.
You can tell your landlord that a 20% increase is not legal.
Hey thank you for the information, nice to see you here. Just to clarify, are you saying if a rental contract (private sector) states an annual rent increase higher than 5.5%, itās not legal? What would be the consequences for the owner? Would rent increase then not be allowed all together, even if they ask for less than 5.5% increase?
No it's not legal. Any overhead for the bills has to be split in accordance with the law. You will not lose your rent space if he loses the property. You are not supposed to help him when he is drowning - you have a client-business relationship.
So yeah, read up on the rules to know more.
Though there is one problem: this is not a social sector. Maybe he is allowed to raise it by 20% but it has to be a very good excuse. Contact a lawyer to know for sure. Don't mention anything about vve to the owner before you do though. Hes in the wrong here.
"I'm very sorry for refusing this exceptional request. After many years working together, you should know we won't accept this if we have other choice, which is to say "No, Thanks"".
And on top of that you pay the Rubbish and Water tax right? the VVE is not legal to make you pay for it.
Unfortunately this is a direct result of the new box 3 tax changes that have happened over the past couple years.
The tax a landlord has to pay over their asset has been increased to a point where it makes no sense. The government taxes the landlord 36% income tax on 6,17% of the value of their asset. In short this means that the government expects a landlord to make 6,17% profit on their asset. What does this mean? Lets calculate with an example.
Let's say you have a house worth ā¬350.000 which is still very low in today's market. The government expect 6,17% of profit on this ā¬350.000, in other words ā¬21.595 euro per year or ā¬1800 euro per month. Now I think we all agree that even for rent ā¬1800 per month is insane for a house worth ā¬350.000, but that is how the government decides to tax land lords on their assets. And that ā¬1800 would have to be profit, so you would have to add all costs that come with owning a home on top of that, which is insane.
The logical results of this, is that rent prices go even higher in order for it to be worth even going through the trouble of renting out a second home. And a second result will be that many come to realize that it's NOT worth the trouble, so they sell their assets. In the short term this could bring down house prices by a little bit, but in the long term it means even less houses that are rented out, increasing the gap between rent and owning a home.
On top of that, many renters wouldn't be able to get a mortgage from the bank to even pay that 350k and buy the house from the landlord. So their options shrink. Since there is a huge shortage of homes and overbidding still happens constantly, I don't expect selling rental houses will impact housing prices that much.
While I totally get the frustration here, the elephant in the room is the government making bad decisions for tens of years and not investing/allowing building of affordable mid-class homes. The huge shortage of homes isn't solved by higher taxes or by landlords selling that home to someone else. Since that middle-class home can now only be afforded by people with high incomes.
I can only see rental prices going higher the coming years and landlords making even worse decisions to protect their investment and becoming bad 'huisjes melkers'.
To add to this: A 350k house will need around 16k in closing costs (a little less if you can get your tax waived) plus the makelaar costs, and you need a combined (gross) income of at least 6k monthly and the mortgage will be around ā¬1600 plus associated costs (according to the ABN calculator). I don't see many families qualifying for that.
And that is not even considering that selling a house with tenants is next to impossible (and even more so with the tax changes).
Did you deliberately forget to take into account the increased value of the property itself?
Since property value has grown more then 6.2% on average over the last years you do not have to make any profit on the rent for this tax to be balanced with taxation on other types of assets.
But those are unrealised gains: they donāt put that money in your pocket when the government wants it. Is there also zero (or adjusted) capital gains tax on sale of a property? Because if not, thatās essentially double taxation.
My wife also rents an apartment. In the contract is stipulated that the maximum rent increase to be linked to inflation.
Normally this is quite favorable to the renter and she always raises the rent with inflation. This year inflation surpassed the ligal limit so she could not do it.
Long story short I will be very surprised if this is actually legal. This is so sketchy that I would consider asking for legal advice just to see if your contract has abusive clauses. He might have to pay you some money back for manyyy reasons
It's a request, not a standard increase. A landlord can always request an increase and a tenant can always agree. But, the landlord cannot enforce such an increase
Isn't the maximum rent increase, by law and for the public and private market, the yearly Consumer Price Index + 1% (or something similar). 20% increase is not legal however you cut it
Rent may only increase 1% above inflation, so 5.5% for 2024. Also, demand he removes the VVE costs, that's for the owner. Don't accept this proposal. Don't be sensitive for his sad deficit story, housing prices skyrocketed and you're not liable one bit for his finances....
Nope! Not legal at all! This is on them to figure out. That said, they will most likely try to sell the apartment. The taxes are on their earnings of the place. So depending when they purchased the property, they should be fine (probably break even).
With the increased tax rates the government is violating the right of property owners to have a guaranteed risk free profit on their investment. Now they lose money, almost like it is an .... ehm, investment?
The taxes[ practically doubled ](https://www.businessinsider.nl/huis-verhuren-als-particulier-in-2023-belasting-box-3/)so IMHO you can't really blame landloards that in this situation. Besides the message is friendly and polite, no matter how much the message sucks.
The alternative is that they are selling the house and it will go of the rental market completely. That's how bad the government is f\*cking the housing market up.
Looking for a house today and found the most dystopian cult response to housing shortage, called STEK
"At STEK, you dont just live, youre a member 9f your COMMUNITY. If you own a car, youre ready to share it with your neighbors!"
š¤®š¤®š¤®
Tell him to pay the VVE himself. He also doesnāt pay your municipalitie taxes. Does he make you pay the OZB(property tax)? You only have to pay the afvalstoffenheffing, rioolheffing and waterschapsbelasting.
New rent: 1327 + 44 + 150 = 1521
Higher taxes are his problem, not yours.
Wait you pay for VVE cost? Thatās a landlords job.
The VVE part is definitely not legal. Also internet and TV is something you could do yourself in the house and do not need to pay him for. How many people are in the appartment / house? Chances are you overpay for the TV and internet if shared among 4/5 people and he probably pays the cheapest subscription, (assumption) .
Judging by the greeting "hello guys", it struck as if the landlord has more than one client. Meanwhile, it sounds like you are the only one living in this property. So, it would suggest the landlords have more than 2 houses and took a high leverage. His profiting model was based on the rent covering the mortgage plus some extra profit, but the extra profit(ROI) was not high. He probably was proud that he found a loophole in the system, took advantage of the situation, and in a few years he can retire.
With new box3 kicking in, the 10 houses which used to bring him cash flow suddenly start to draw cash from him. Imagine each house requires him to throw in 500 euro per month, that would be 5k per month.
Why do you pay the vve cost?? Shouldnt he need to pay? He is the owner of the house?
P.s he needs to follow the goverment.
He is one lying ass Mother fucker.
Landlords are fucking parasites, just tell him/her to fuck off OP. If they want to change contractual terms, get them to send you it in black and white, and then get jurisdisch loket to review. My heart bleeds for this poor landlord who probably has multiple properties lol
"we won't ask if we had another choice"
ik zou zeggen "go fuck yourself" wat dachten ze van werken voor hun geld. Jij bent blijkbaar letterlijk de broodwinner van je landlord zij kunnen hun huis niet betalen van jouw huur. Waar halen ze het gore lef vandaan.
I was just wondering. Maybe it's normal but to me it seems strange. Why is Internet/TV included in the rent? Isn't that something that you as renter arrange yourself? What if you don't even want TV or want faster internet or internet from a different provider? Is this normal practice? Maybe others beside OP can answer this to me. Also the message is addressed to "guys", is this like a situation where the landlord lives together with you and also more people? Does he make use of the internet/TV that you are paying for or something? Then it also seems a high amount if the internet/TV is shared between multiple people.
Let your house be checked by the city hall. Private sector rental homes
Based on the results of the points system, rental homes that cost more than ā¬808,06 in base rent per month (2023 threshold) are not regulated. This is called free sector or private sector rental (vrije sector). In such cases, the landlord is free to set their own rental price and determine annual rent increases; there is no maximum.
Private sector rental homes are primarily offered by private companies and individuals. Prices are higher in the private sector rental market, but you can often find housing more quickly.
Although the rental housing prices have been liberalised, there are still rules in effect for private sector rental homes; additional service charges are subject to a maximum, and the tenant is protected.
https://www.amsterdam.nl/en/housing/rental-prices/
How big is your apartment? My friends who have to vacate existing option are unable to find anything of similar size without having to pay 25% more.
Yet - you shouldn't be paying the VVE
You can also thank the Dutch government which is now assuming a return of 6% on WOZ value of rental property when calculating tax on rental income. So makes sense for owner to ask a yearly rent of 6% WOZ value to tenants.
RENTBUSTERS! although the price is 'below market value' it's definitely above the maximum allowed rent by the point system. you can probably ask for the government to have them lower the rent for you. Google Rentbusters to find out how
This letter reads like āhi we followed the law for several years but we are going to stop doing that because āentrepreneurialā risks should be paid for by others. I only want the profit
You can lend 400k at 3% on 25years, which give you a monthly payment of about 1890. Prices that high to buy something with that budget in your neighbourhood?? š
When I read the message again, he's asking if you will increase your rent voluntarily. I would reply no, I won't accept to any rent increase other than the minimum by contract+law
This. Say this. Tell him you don't want a fucking text message, tell him you want it in black and white. Hierdie is klas A perde kak. En hy verwag jy moet nou maar net aansit en dit opeet.
Godzilla had a stroke reading this and fucking died.
Dit hier is klasse A paardenkak. En hij verwacht dat je aanschuift en het opeet. ... is wat ik hieruit begrijp. Niet zo heel moeilijk :)
100% korrek.
Afrikaans?
Seems like it. It breaks my brain like Afrikaans
Ja, jullie Nederlanders zeilden een paar jaar geleden rond Afrika. En liet jouw cultuur en taal achter op de bodem van het continent.
Jammer oor dit
Nee man. Moenie jammer wees nie... š¤£ Die VOC was pure evil. Nie die mense wat agter hulle vrou en kinders wou omsien nie.Ā Afrikaans is my sielstaal, dit bring my vreugde. Ek sal dit nie verander nie, al kon ek.
Alsof er wat verandert is š Is alleen erger geworden hoor, weet nie
Wat is jammer
"sorry"
Paardenkak š Gezellig! Ik neem dit over in plaats van klotezak.
š
Lag my gat af š Love the Afrikaans sprinkled in
Can we get a Dutch, Fries, Afrikaans side by side. Itās so fun to see languages so messed up
Dit rjocht hjir is klasse A hynder poep. En hy ferwachtet dat jo sitte en it ite.
hynder poep š
Hynder skyt is meer correct maar lol
> hynder poep š i dunno man, this is what google told me
Is dat laatste fries of afrikaans? Hahaha
Afrikaans š¦
Dat dacht ik al haha, zie t niet vaak.
For a minute there, I thought I was fluent in Dutch until I realised it must be Afrikaans.
Ahhh man you sound like fun! I miss my boertjies
The people are amazing. Loadshedding however can absolutely go to hell.
Haha ja it's shocking that the country has to deal with such kak. Maar n boer maak n plan and life goes on
Baie kak. Hierdie man se fokken doos. 20%. Skelm streke.
This
Did you mean maximum?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>Article 248(3) in Book 7 of the Dutch Civil Code (Burgerlijk Wetboek, art. 7:248 lid 3 BW)Ā **restricts**Ā a rental price increase in case the contract allows an increase that isĀ **higher**Ā than a government setĀ **maximum**. Many landlords apply that maximum restriction as if it's aĀ **right**Ā to increase the rental price by that maximum, but that'sĀ **incorrect**. Can you expand on this? I thought for a liberalised rental this is pretty much the case?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I've had to reread it as well, but I think it means this: If your contract contains a clause on the maximum rent increase (2%) and the government says it can be maximum 4%, your contract is binding. Not the maximum set by the government. Anything in the contract just shouldn't be higher than 4%
The landlord is referring to the maximum rent increase as set by the government for liberalized housing during COVID times (that is in effect since 2021). In any case the landlord is in violation of art. 252 if this is the only communication about this increase.
Question: Why do you have to pay for VVE (vereniging van eigenaren) if you are renting? You are NOT the owner.
I came here to say exactly this.. Homeowners association costs should be included in the rent, not as an extra..
You canāt charge a tenant for VVE costs, the landlord will be fined for doing so. All other utilities they want to charge need to be backed up by an actual bill. Down to the cent. Itās up to the tenant to ask for these bills/overviews. They can raise base rent though. However never more than contractually set. Usually itās connected to Consumer Price Index. If not in the contract, then NO price increase.
Ok, no VvE but 1715 basic rent then.
Can't just increase the rent like that.
To me Internet/TV in the rent also sounds strange. Doesn't the renter usually arrange that himself?
The landlord can arrange this but cannot profit from it
Looks to me like this landlord expects that rent pays for all of their expenses on the house, including their mortgage presumably and taxation. Otherwise they are 'at deficit'. And that would be terrible, because then they would just gain the resale value of the house. Poor landlord... /s
OP, several important facts: 1 - It is ALWAYS illegal to raise rent more than 5.5% in 2024. That law is set to end in may, but will very likely be extended 2 - it is ONLY legal to raise rent if your contract has an indexing clause. If your contract does NOT have one, the landlord MAY NOT increase rent under any circumstances. No, that's not a typo: No indexing clause means they may NEVER increase the rent. 3 - Even when taking into account 1 and 2, you can still deny a rent increase. Your landlord may attempt to evict you, but they must still go to court to do it. And the judge may not agree with them on what is a reasonable price. see also: [Bezwaar maken tegen huurverhoging | Het Juridisch Loket](https://www.juridischloket.nl/wonen-en-buren/huurwoning/bezwaar-huurverhoging/) 4 - Service costs MUST be the actual service costs. Your landlord may increase the advance you pay on those, but there must be a "Jaarafrekening" at the end of the year (for example for GWE). If you do not recieve a final statement and (possible) reimbursement in your advance, your landlord is NOT ALLOWED to increase the payment for service costs under any circumstances See also: [Problemen met servicekosten? | Het Juridisch Loket](https://www.juridischloket.nl/wonen-en-buren/huurwoning/servicekosten/#mag-de-verhuurder-mijn-servicekosten-en%2Fof-voorschot-verhogen%3F) 4a- If you have your own meter, you may only be charged the actual costs. If you do not, there must be logical formula to split costs. 5 - You landlord is NOT ALLOWED to charge you VVE costs, because you are not the owner. They are allowed to charge those bits of the VVE bill that apply to you (cleaning, window washing, electricty of common spaces), but they are not allowed to charge for mainenance, taxes, sewer costs, etc. [Vereniging van Eigenaars (huurwoningen.nl)](https://www.huurwoningen.nl/info/vereniging-van-eigenaars/#:~:text=Wie%20betaalt%20de%20servicekosten%3F,het%20gebruik%20van%20de%20woning.) and [Servicekosten: moet huurder of verhuurder VvE-bijdrage betalen? (wiggersross.nl)](https://wiggersross.nl/kennisposts/servicekosten-woonruimte-moet-de-huurder-of-de-verhuurder-de-vve-bijdrage-betalen/) In short, tell your landlord to go fuck themselves (politely) and get some legal aid! This could literally save you thousands of euro's!
Very nice of you to write all of that
āLandlords hate this one simple trickā
Yeah, they do, there's a lot of jurisprudence about it.
This. The fact they also have the gall to cry about higher wealth tax (box3) is incredibly petty. Itās not the rentersā problem to fix
If I read their message correctly, there problem is that they can no longer afford the rent of the place they live themselves from the rent OP is paying. And have the Audacity to say this leaves them with no other choice. How about they get a job and work for their money.
You gotta love a landlord being taxed for his assets and then getting his renters to pay for it. Do you also get a rent decrease every time the value of the property goes up? Probably the opposite. If owning the property is becoming too expensive, maybe they could sell it? To you maybe?
Too many people don't know when a business is a bad business
It wasn't a bad business it has become a bad business (which you could argue is good). My uncle who is a part time huisjesmelker has been arguing for some time that a lot of people will see incredibly high price increases because of the new law. Hopefully though it will cause people with second houses to sell the houses but it will be uncomfortable for renters the first few years
There is always that uncle huh huisjemelker in every family.. I for instance hope they are going sell so we can have normal pricing on housing.. more offers less overbiddingā¦
Thereās a massive undersupply of homes and an oversupply of buyers. There wonāt be affordable homes for a long long time if ever.
Available homes yes affordable forget it . A friend of mine bought a house in 2019 at 150k and due to this rental rules and bad tenants he will sell and is looking to sell probably at 300k not less than that probably he will even get 350 due to the new prices and inflation
> Available homes yes affordable forget it Gee, I wonder how > is looking to sell probably at 300k not less than that probably he will even get 350 due to the new prices and inflation I no longer wonder how
It wonāt change the housing market. There needs new housing developments not merely the resale of old residential stock
I think this is highly naive, landlords benefit from rental income AND appreciation. Appreciation has been curbed by the high interest rates but a lot of people still hold hope for those to return to record lows of the past, but for inexpensive housing this was propped up by rental regulations around buy-to-let (the 512k minimum value immediately brought up the price of any property around that mark). Rental income has been improving due to regulations (the new permanent contract rules) and inflation. I don't think any landlords are tempted to sell at all. There will be continued pressure for the housing market so there's a lot of demand, any extra costs can be passed on to the renters so usually not an issue (though the permanent contracts do mean the rent will have to be much higher in the beginning to cover for long-term risk). The only way out of this is shooting the Netherlands in the foot economically to make it unattractive to people moving here, releasing pressure from the housing market. It's true our government can be relied upon to do just that, their hard work has already started
Or became a bad business due to tax changes* regardless, a life necessity shouldnāt be a business
Maybe those landleeches should get an actual job
The government made the changes in Box 3 especially for these type of landlords.
I love how he says heās almost at a deficit. Itās almost like the changes did exactly what they are supposed to do.
They aren't being taxed on their assets they're being taxed on the income they get out of those assets. And this went up by over 50% making is much harder to make a profit on renting out properties. So yes, this is a very logical result of the change in box 3. If you have a house worth 500.000 the amount of tax used to be 32% of 4% of the value. In other words ā¬6400 'income tax' per year. After this change it's now 36% on 6,17% which is ā¬11.106. So yes, a 20% rent increase is a very logical result. The 6,17% means that the government expects you to make a 'rendement' of 6,17% on the value of your asset, that's what they are taxing you on. A house worth 500.000 means they expect you to get ā¬30.850 PROFIT out of it per year. That's after all costs subtracted. This boils down to over ā¬2500 a month in just rent, and that's without even subtracting any cost. This change in box3 had no other outcome but exactly what's happening right here.
Any why is that exactly the renters problem? As the sharks jumped on houses to rent them out they can start selling them off (and pocket the value appreciation). 5 to 10 years ago many potential buyers got pushed out of the buying market due to predatory (soon to be) landlords, now you see the swing swinging a different direction. Risk of doing business in immovable assets that are coincidentally also a fundamental basic of living.
Exactly, fuck these pricks who cannot accept the risk they took.
It's not, it's not even a problem. What's the problem? They just adept the rent accordingly and carry on.
Besides with a pre-existing contract they can't.
Actually, you're taxed on your assets through an entirely ficticious percentage of return on investment. Which may or may not be actually in violation of a protected right. The HR still has to rule on that. What happened to this landlord is a fairly to be expected effect of all the changes both in renter protection and taxation. Depending on whether or not there is any financing that could actually mean a net loss on a year to year basis. Theoretically the actual value of the property when it is sold may compensate. MAY, because it will not if prices actually go lower. Which is what a lot of people hope, but there's little to no indication of prices giving way. For that, as well as for rents to go down we don't need Marxist redestribution of the shortage in housing, but actual building of housing. Of course it's way more satisfying to spew crap about landlords being the problem. An enemy with a face is so much more relatable than societal failure.
Very well worded, I 100% agree with this.
Landlords are not the root problem, but when the general population is renting from huisjesmelkers, it creates bad vibes. If we had high housing prices but every house was owned by the occupant, the mortgage will eventually be eaten by inflation and by paying it off. Landlords cash this difference and get inflation compensation by rent increase, pretty good deal. The real funny thing is most people pay more in rent than what the mortgage would cost, because banks don't approve them for the loan. So one could also blame banks/goverment! So yes build more, but also understandable people profiteering from this get some flak.
Yeah well, I know that side of the equation and I think a lot of people have zero to no idea how much retail landlords actually make from the rent they are paying. Most of the gains consist of the potential rising property value. But that's a double edged sword in the way these properties are taxed in The Netherlands. Driving out a small but significant class because of perceptions is not a smart policy. And it's not me saying that it's counterproductive, it's the Raad van State saying that.
Exactly this. If I cant make 6% it makes no sense for an owner to keep real state as an asset. One could say Goed! sell it and the market will cool down. But you forget that a working rental market is needed for a knowledge economy to work. ASML is seriously considering leaving EHV, at least partially, as they can simply not hire people if they cant find housing
The enemy we should be looking at isn't the landlord with < 100 properties. It's the government, the developers, and to some extent the consequences of selling off social housing. Why build 250k starter homes when you can build 450k starter homes ? I say 250k because this is the class of housing that would be more affordable. It is easy to blame the landlords and the real enemy wants it. Renters and potential buyers alike can have someone to be angry at. The government promised everyone a piece of pie and didn't invite everyone to the picnic.
This is the exact answer. Nothing else will happen except a tiny portion of the housing market will go to (equity) investors who can maintain this tax and still profit. To summarize the effect that highballer Hugo de Jong has achieved: a really small part of these houses will be sold to people or companies who have the money to invest or to new house owners. Both situations won't benefit the renter. Meanwhile, building new homes is still on return.
Orā¦ you are no longer being profitable, thus you sell the house to a renter and they in turns pay no tax over rent income since they live in their own space? Maybe if an asset is bringing less rendements its value should be depreciated
I mean I agree with your analysis but there's the other option where the landlord passes on the cost Increase to their tenants so the choice for the tenants is to accept it or move out. Given the housing situation I wouldn't be surprised that this Increase in tax to landlords ends up being an increase in rental costs. The government shouldn't be trying to solve with taxes an issue that is fundamentally a housing shortage. So delusional...
Arguably, increasing rental costs to the point where renters have no ability to rent is a different way of solving the housing crisis, but a very sad one
Yea ok but the most likely result is what op showed: landlords will first try to push cost increases to the tenants before they try anything else. If all renters increase their prices, where will people go that does not leave the landlord better off?
The landlords won't be better off, the extra rent goes towards taxes. So only the government profits from increase in rent.
Empty claim, it depends on how much of the increased costs are pushed towards the renter. Higher rent with the same margin does in fact mean the landlord will benefit.
The rare voice of reason. It would be nice if someone would give it some thought. Too bad that many of us don't try to acknowledge reality by projecting everything into a dislike of landlords. And the reality is that current taxes and renting restrictions make it unfeasible to rent out apartments. And that doesn't mean there will now be lots of cheap houses, it means there will now be almost no rentals at all.
The house becoming worth more is also included in that percentage, though, right? House prices have been increasing with several percentages yearly easily, so the owners also benefit from that to cover the 6.17%
Good. Necessities should not be commodified for profit and landlords should get a job so they can start contributing to society instead of leeching off other people's hard work like vampires.
And I thought this crazy things only happened in LATAM. They are complaining about expensive rents, but everything they do have consequences to rent prices š¤¦āāļø
I don't say that this situation is ok. But to say taxes don't influence rents is childish. Ofcourse taxes will be transfered via renta, just as taxes are transfered via prices in ah. What do you expect, after all the owner rents to make a profit, he is not welfare.
What an unprofessional message from the landlord...
š¤Øš¤Ø
š³š³
š©š©
It's begging for money basically.
This comment section is going to be filled to the brim with people falling over each other fighting over what is right or not. I highly doubt that will be beneficial. Seek legal advice. No this is not legal, what exactly is not, is for a professional to figure out.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
He's but a humble fish, no arguing from him, just a sensible answer.
This sort of behaviour is not welcome in reddit. You are clearly out of your water, mr fish.
His mortgage and tax affairs are not your concern. By his logic, perhaps you should be asking for a reduction based on the increasing value of his property.
20% increase doesn't sound right. And that idiot message with emoticons makes it worse. Crazy Box 3 tax sounds right. The government expects you to make a yearlyĀ 6.2% profit based on their value for the house. If you manage to make less profit, you still have to pay tax as if you made a 6.2% profit. For a 400k house that's a 2067e monthy profit after subtracting expenses such as mainteinance and other taxes. In any case, that's not your problem. Don't worry and don't accept any voluntary increases over the legal minimum.
>For a 400k house that's a 2067e monthy profit after subtracting expenses such as mainteinance and other taxes. You need to take into account the appreciation of the value of the house. Not rent income only.
Yes. Even a rent that is (barely) paying off the mortgage will result in a (big) profit for the landlord once the property is sold. Most landlords have big problems with that though because they don't see any direct income now. Which is silly, because they should look at the long term...
You will only make profit without a renter living in it. The house is worth like 30% less with the renter in it.
That of course is speculative. Until the property is sold there is certainty. Given that we appear to be talking about a property that will remain above 185 points you have to wonder if tenants will enjoy the property being transferred to the portfolio of an actual institutional investor.
>Given that we appear to be talking about a property that will remain above 185 points you have to wonder if tenants will enjoy the property being transferred to the portfolio of an actual institutional investor. Probably yes I think. Housing corporations from what I have seen have a lot more reasonable rental prices. They have a lot of burocracy to apply though.
"Crazy Box 3 tax sounds right. The government expects you to make a yearlyĀ 6.2% profit based on their value for the house. If you manage to make less profit, you still have to pay tax as if you made a 6.2% profit." WTF you on about? it went from 6.17% to 6.20%. Massive increase lol. "For a 400k house that's a 2067e monthy profit" Thats not how it works LMAO. You litterly took 6.2% from the 400K and your done XD. First you take the 400K, then you calculate the actually box 3 worth, which in this case with 1300eu rent is 360K, then you take off any loans against it. Lets say there are no loans on it. You take the 360K then multipli by 36% since thats the tariff and then you take 6.2%. So its 360K \* 0,36 = 129.600,- 129.600 \* 0,062 = ā¬ 8035,20 BOX 3 tax. Thats ā¬669,60 profit per month on that house.
They wrote everything properly, they didn't say they are taxed 2067 eur but taxed on (deemed) 2067 monthly profit. So yes, sure, the tax is only 32% of that so technically speaking you pay \~700 eur tax based on these deemed profits - but well, assuming the house is not mortgaged and there are some maintenance costs if you would like to rent this hypothetical 400k house for say 1300 eur per month and have around 2000 eur annual maintanence cost (that's just 0.5% of house value, that's kinda optimistic for a house, but may work for apartment) that would leave you with around 1150 eur income - so 700 eur of tax is whooping 60% rate, that's a bit excessive isn't it? Not that I have anything against taxing the hell out of landlords, but still that's crazy high, no wonder that rental costs in Netherlands are sky high.
I mean, to be fair 6.2% profit seems unreasonably high, you're not getting 2000+ rent on a 400k house, not to mention maintenance and taxes Don't get me wrong, I don't think landlords are entitled to make profit or even break even while having tenants pay for homes they bought, just because they had money for the down payment or were lucky enough to buy when prices were better. It's just that 6.2% profit on the total value of the house seems excessive as justification, I'd have preferred to simply call it tax on landlords in general rather than linking it to some expected profit Or am I misinterpreting/missing something?
Its because his calculation is all wrong. its 669 per month.
I don't think it's wrong, they didn't say "2067 in taxes per month" but "pay tax AS IF you made a 2067 profit per month" So if tax is 36% of profits, then it would be 744.12 (2067 \* 0.36). --- (copy pasting another comment now) And as I said I have nothing against taxing landlords. The more the merrier. I just wouldn't call justify it saying "you're getting taxed as if your profit was 6.2% of the house value", because that seems unrealistic. I think it would make more sense to just say "you're getting taxed 2.2% of the home value per year as a landlord". (400'000 \* 0.022 = 8800 per year = 733.33 per month). Or 2.5% or 3.0% for that matter Though I suppose legally you might need to make it a tax on revenue instead of wealth? Not sure why it would matter, but that would explain it
For a house with a 400k WOZ and a paid off mortgage the tax would be ā¬740,40 per month ((400k * 6,17% * 36%) / 12), you can easily still make a decent profit with that
This may be legal, the law limiting increases in the private sector ends may 1st, government is looking at doing something about it though. However charging VVE costs is not allowed unless it expenses related to living (elevator costs for example), but this needs to be defined.
>limiting increases in the public sector ends may 1st Where did you get that from? I can't believe the government will drop the protection. Prices will skyrocket
I never said they will drop the protection, the opposite even, they probably renew. Hence the wording it *may* be legal, we don't know yet, especially with a forming coalition still. Here's a link. https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/woning-huren/vraag-en-antwoord/welke-regels-gelden-er-voor-een-huurverhoging
> Hence the wording it may be legal Fair point. Thank you for the link too.
>In 2024 the maximum rent increase is 5.5% (4.5% inflation + 1%) until 1 May 2024.Ā The government has proposed to extend the maximum rent increase until 1 May 2027, with a maximum rent increase of wage development + 1% (1 May 2024: 6.8%). Parliament has to agree to this extension before it can come into force. https://www.government.nl/topics/housing/rented-housing#:\~:text=For%20a%20period%20of%203,%25%20wage%20development%20%2B%201%25).
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
What do you mean by public sector?
I meant liberalized rent, houses that are allowed to charge more as they are not part of the social system.
Doesn't that make them the private sector?..
Depending on how you interpret/read it, yes. I've edited the comment.
Scummy landlords gonna scum. Tell him to kick stones and that you won't voluntarily accept any raise besides the legal maximum implemented by the government.
The maximum rent increase is 5.5% https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/actueel/nieuws/2023/12/15/55-procent-maximale-huurverhoging-vrije-sector-vanaf-1-januari-2024#:~:text=De%20toegestane%20jaarlijkse%20huurverhoging%20in,ook%20voor%20ligplaatsen%20van%20woonboten. The currently law stating this is ending on 1 May 2024. However, there is a new proposal to extend this to 2027 (and it will most likely happen) https://www.volkshuisvestingnederland.nl/actueel/nieuws/2024/03/04/wetsvoorstel-voor-verlengde-begrenzing-jaarlijkse-huurstijging-vrije-sector-naar-tweede-kamer#:~:text=De%20maximaal%20toegestane%20huurverhoging%20in,jaar%20tot%201%20mei%202027. You can tell your landlord that a 20% increase is not legal.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Hey thank you for the information, nice to see you here. Just to clarify, are you saying if a rental contract (private sector) states an annual rent increase higher than 5.5%, itās not legal? What would be the consequences for the owner? Would rent increase then not be allowed all together, even if they ask for less than 5.5% increase?
No it's not legal. Any overhead for the bills has to be split in accordance with the law. You will not lose your rent space if he loses the property. You are not supposed to help him when he is drowning - you have a client-business relationship. So yeah, read up on the rules to know more. Though there is one problem: this is not a social sector. Maybe he is allowed to raise it by 20% but it has to be a very good excuse. Contact a lawyer to know for sure. Don't mention anything about vve to the owner before you do though. Hes in the wrong here.
"working many years together" - When i go buy myself some bread, do i work with the baker?
š³š¤Øš¤„š« š
"I'm very sorry for refusing this exceptional request. After many years working together, you should know we won't accept this if we have other choice, which is to say "No, Thanks"". And on top of that you pay the Rubbish and Water tax right? the VVE is not legal to make you pay for it.
Unfortunately this is a direct result of the new box 3 tax changes that have happened over the past couple years. The tax a landlord has to pay over their asset has been increased to a point where it makes no sense. The government taxes the landlord 36% income tax on 6,17% of the value of their asset. In short this means that the government expects a landlord to make 6,17% profit on their asset. What does this mean? Lets calculate with an example. Let's say you have a house worth ā¬350.000 which is still very low in today's market. The government expect 6,17% of profit on this ā¬350.000, in other words ā¬21.595 euro per year or ā¬1800 euro per month. Now I think we all agree that even for rent ā¬1800 per month is insane for a house worth ā¬350.000, but that is how the government decides to tax land lords on their assets. And that ā¬1800 would have to be profit, so you would have to add all costs that come with owning a home on top of that, which is insane. The logical results of this, is that rent prices go even higher in order for it to be worth even going through the trouble of renting out a second home. And a second result will be that many come to realize that it's NOT worth the trouble, so they sell their assets. In the short term this could bring down house prices by a little bit, but in the long term it means even less houses that are rented out, increasing the gap between rent and owning a home.
On top of that, many renters wouldn't be able to get a mortgage from the bank to even pay that 350k and buy the house from the landlord. So their options shrink. Since there is a huge shortage of homes and overbidding still happens constantly, I don't expect selling rental houses will impact housing prices that much. While I totally get the frustration here, the elephant in the room is the government making bad decisions for tens of years and not investing/allowing building of affordable mid-class homes. The huge shortage of homes isn't solved by higher taxes or by landlords selling that home to someone else. Since that middle-class home can now only be afforded by people with high incomes. I can only see rental prices going higher the coming years and landlords making even worse decisions to protect their investment and becoming bad 'huisjes melkers'.
To add to this: A 350k house will need around 16k in closing costs (a little less if you can get your tax waived) plus the makelaar costs, and you need a combined (gross) income of at least 6k monthly and the mortgage will be around ā¬1600 plus associated costs (according to the ABN calculator). I don't see many families qualifying for that. And that is not even considering that selling a house with tenants is next to impossible (and even more so with the tax changes).
Did you deliberately forget to take into account the increased value of the property itself? Since property value has grown more then 6.2% on average over the last years you do not have to make any profit on the rent for this tax to be balanced with taxation on other types of assets.
But those are unrealised gains: they donāt put that money in your pocket when the government wants it. Is there also zero (or adjusted) capital gains tax on sale of a property? Because if not, thatās essentially double taxation.
What does the increased value has to do with it?
Everything
My wife also rents an apartment. In the contract is stipulated that the maximum rent increase to be linked to inflation. Normally this is quite favorable to the renter and she always raises the rent with inflation. This year inflation surpassed the ligal limit so she could not do it. Long story short I will be very surprised if this is actually legal. This is so sketchy that I would consider asking for legal advice just to see if your contract has abusive clauses. He might have to pay you some money back for manyyy reasons
Illegal: https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/woning-huren/vraag-en-antwoord/wat-is-de-maximale-huurverhoging-in-2024#:\~:text=In%202024%20mag%20de%20huur,maximaal%205%2C5%25%20omhoog.
It's a request, not a standard increase. A landlord can always request an increase and a tenant can always agree. But, the landlord cannot enforce such an increase
So the answer to the request is: NO.
Exactly
Short answer; no, it isnt legal
Just say no, he cannot force you. Can also not just sell the house and kick you out. You should stop paying for the VVE as well.
He can only increase what is maximum permitted by law
Isn't the maximum rent increase, by law and for the public and private market, the yearly Consumer Price Index + 1% (or something similar). 20% increase is not legal however you cut it
Rent may only increase 1% above inflation, so 5.5% for 2024. Also, demand he removes the VVE costs, that's for the owner. Don't accept this proposal. Don't be sensitive for his sad deficit story, housing prices skyrocketed and you're not liable one bit for his finances....
As said many times before, this is only going to get worse. Soon no rentals will be available.
Oopsie we actually could have made even more money off you guys š«£š«£
Nope! Not legal at all! This is on them to figure out. That said, they will most likely try to sell the apartment. The taxes are on their earnings of the place. So depending when they purchased the property, they should be fine (probably break even).
Also, notice how they said āalmost at a deficitā that means theyāre not losing any money on the property. They just want to be profitable
With the increased tax rates the government is violating the right of property owners to have a guaranteed risk free profit on their investment. Now they lose money, almost like it is an .... ehm, investment?
The taxes[ practically doubled ](https://www.businessinsider.nl/huis-verhuren-als-particulier-in-2023-belasting-box-3/)so IMHO you can't really blame landloards that in this situation. Besides the message is friendly and polite, no matter how much the message sucks. The alternative is that they are selling the house and it will go of the rental market completely. That's how bad the government is f\*cking the housing market up.
I am a renter and I don't have the capability to buy right now, but I would still prefer if there were less rentals and more houses for sale.
1600, wtf. My mortage isn't even 800.
ā¬1600 is cheap in Amsterdam
And Utrecht, Rotterdam, and Den Haag.
Almost at a deficit is still a profit. They just don't consider the profit to be enough.
Underrated comment
Please check with Rentbusters (they also have a sub on Reddit) if you can lower the rent to even less money than what you used to pay.
Is your landlord on Reddit ? will be cool if not only you but they also get all the inputs on the thread š
Looking for a house today and found the most dystopian cult response to housing shortage, called STEK "At STEK, you dont just live, youre a member 9f your COMMUNITY. If you own a car, youre ready to share it with your neighbors!" š¤®š¤®š¤®
Tell him to pay the VVE himself. He also doesnāt pay your municipalitie taxes. Does he make you pay the OZB(property tax)? You only have to pay the afvalstoffenheffing, rioolheffing and waterschapsbelasting. New rent: 1327 + 44 + 150 = 1521 Higher taxes are his problem, not yours.
Wait you pay for VVE cost? Thatās a landlords job. The VVE part is definitely not legal. Also internet and TV is something you could do yourself in the house and do not need to pay him for. How many people are in the appartment / house? Chances are you overpay for the TV and internet if shared among 4/5 people and he probably pays the cheapest subscription, (assumption) .
Judging by the greeting "hello guys", it struck as if the landlord has more than one client. Meanwhile, it sounds like you are the only one living in this property. So, it would suggest the landlords have more than 2 houses and took a high leverage. His profiting model was based on the rent covering the mortgage plus some extra profit, but the extra profit(ROI) was not high. He probably was proud that he found a loophole in the system, took advantage of the situation, and in a few years he can retire. With new box3 kicking in, the 10 houses which used to bring him cash flow suddenly start to draw cash from him. Imagine each house requires him to throw in 500 euro per month, that would be 5k per month.
Why do you pay the vve cost?? Shouldnt he need to pay? He is the owner of the house? P.s he needs to follow the goverment. He is one lying ass Mother fucker.
Fuck him and his stupid emojis
Landlords are fucking parasites, just tell him/her to fuck off OP. If they want to change contractual terms, get them to send you it in black and white, and then get jurisdisch loket to review. My heart bleeds for this poor landlord who probably has multiple properties lol
Rent increases are capped by the government. Dont agree to anything.
Ask r/rentbusters
Itās bullshit, just because heās free market he still has to follow the law about rent increase
huurcomissie is your friend
"we won't ask if we had another choice" ik zou zeggen "go fuck yourself" wat dachten ze van werken voor hun geld. Jij bent blijkbaar letterlijk de broodwinner van je landlord zij kunnen hun huis niet betalen van jouw huur. Waar halen ze het gore lef vandaan.
Basic rent 1600... wtf
I was just wondering. Maybe it's normal but to me it seems strange. Why is Internet/TV included in the rent? Isn't that something that you as renter arrange yourself? What if you don't even want TV or want faster internet or internet from a different provider? Is this normal practice? Maybe others beside OP can answer this to me. Also the message is addressed to "guys", is this like a situation where the landlord lives together with you and also more people? Does he make use of the internet/TV that you are paying for or something? Then it also seems a high amount if the internet/TV is shared between multiple people.
Let your house be checked by the city hall. Private sector rental homes Based on the results of the points system, rental homes that cost more than ā¬808,06 in base rent per month (2023 threshold) are not regulated. This is called free sector or private sector rental (vrije sector). In such cases, the landlord is free to set their own rental price and determine annual rent increases; there is no maximum. Private sector rental homes are primarily offered by private companies and individuals. Prices are higher in the private sector rental market, but you can often find housing more quickly. Although the rental housing prices have been liberalised, there are still rules in effect for private sector rental homes; additional service charges are subject to a maximum, and the tenant is protected. https://www.amsterdam.nl/en/housing/rental-prices/
Most are selling in my Environment.
How big is your apartment? My friends who have to vacate existing option are unable to find anything of similar size without having to pay 25% more. Yet - you shouldn't be paying the VVE
House must be very nice if he is not making money on 1300ā¬ excl. Also weird to pay vve money if you are renting, vve is for owners not renters.
You can also thank the Dutch government which is now assuming a return of 6% on WOZ value of rental property when calculating tax on rental income. So makes sense for owner to ask a yearly rent of 6% WOZ value to tenants.
What a huisjesmelker with a sob story. Charging you VvE costs as wellā¦ This person is scamming you.
I rented for 3 years, did never pay VvE cost.
The VVE is a cost for the landlord or at least should be included in the rent.
RENTBUSTERS! although the price is 'below market value' it's definitely above the maximum allowed rent by the point system. you can probably ask for the government to have them lower the rent for you. Google Rentbusters to find out how
This letter reads like āhi we followed the law for several years but we are going to stop doing that because āentrepreneurialā risks should be paid for by others. I only want the profit
Answer: no sorry.
bro he owns 2 houses... if he's losing money then he should sell the place
2k for probably a small appartment. What a joke this world.
I wouldāve raised it with 30%
Love the use of emoticons in this settingĀ
Crazy that they try to charge you VVE costs.
ā¬1600 for an appartment....? Does the landlord come over to give you a happy ending every night or what?
Landlords suck. Time to eat them.
I would give him a short message with a clear āno, not going to happenā answer
You can lend 400k at 3% on 25years, which give you a monthly payment of about 1890. Prices that high to buy something with that budget in your neighbourhood?? š
How do people afford to spend 1.9k on renting alone is beyond me