Can landlords change locks and vacate? Sometimes yes!

A thorn in every landlord's side: a tenant who doesn't pay. Often you have to wait until the rent arrears reach three months before you can successfully file a summary proceedings until eviction can begin. Is it about a house? Then nowadays you even have to first report the rent arrears to the municipality. This must be done in connection with the so-called early detection of debt. If this does not happen, then the court may order the eviction notice reject. Then let's take action ourselves as a landlord, personally effect the eviction and replace the locks. Problem solved, you would think. Unsurprisingly, that's not allowed either. Although in a recent case the Supreme Court did allow the landlord to replace the locks. Rental law attorney Robert van Ewijk discusses two rental cases in which this played out, but each ended differently.

Cantonal court prohibits eviction despite arrears in payment

The first case is from early last year. It involved a court case in Zeeland over a rental property. Before the case went to court, there had been several escalations. Because the tenant was in arrears with payments, the landlord filed a proceedings on the merits started in which termination of the lease is claimed and eviction of the rental property. The landlord wanted a ruling not wait and therefore went to the tenant's ‘door’ several times to force the tenant to vacate the property. On Whatsapp, he used intimidating language towards the tenant. After the police had intervened in an incident in which the landlord went to the house with others, the landlord once again went to the door. Everything, according to the judge, indicated that the landlord wanted to proceed with self-defense. At the hearing, although the landlord indicated that he would not proceed to evict himself, he added that he ‘cannot guarantee that others will not do the same. That comment is according to the court “not very reassuring”.

Tenant who does not pay is also entitled to rental enjoyment

The court considered that the basic principle is that the tenant has the right to make undisturbed use of his rental property. This means that the landlord may therefore not vacate it without a enforceable title exists, such as a court order. That there is a rent arrears does not make this any different. Because there is a real threat that the landlord will proceed with eviction anyway (evidenced by phone calls, whatsapp messages, coming to the tenant's door, and comments at the hearing), the tenant has an urgent interest in an injunction against eviction. The court therefore grants that requested injunction. The injunction is further aggravated by a penalty of €40,000 for if the landlord violates that prohibition.

Supreme Court: replacing locks by landlord is permissible

The case that served several months later at the Supreme Court ended much better for the landlord. The landlord took the position that given the rent arrears, he was authorized to suspend his obligation to provide rental enjoyment. The case involved leased business premises. The tenant vacated the premises after arrears of payment arose. The landlord then decided to replace the locks. Subsequently, the landlord informed the tenant that it would no longer provide the tenancy due to rent arrears. Despite the fact that the tenant had already vacated the premises, that his business activities had been relocated, and despite his payment arrears, the tenant sought a declaratory judgment that the landlord acted unlawfully by replacing the locks and he claimed compensation. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court.

Suspension also allowed in rental agreement

Central to the Supreme Court's ruling is the view that a lease is a reciprocal contract. The rule is that if one of the parties fails to fulfill it, the other party can suspend its obligations. So this also applies to the landlord in a rental agreement. Therefore, the landlord was allowed to replace the locks of the leased property and deny the tenant access. Indeed, this is and form of suspension that the Supreme Court has ruled is also permitted in rental law.

What may and may not landlords do in cases of rent arrears?

The two rulings differ on one important point. The court ordered the landlord to vacate the leased property. This, incidentally, was in line with established case law. The Supreme Court, on the other hand, allowed access to be denied. The major difference, however, is that in the case the Supreme Court ruled on, the business premises had already been vacated. However, the injunction issued by the court related to bringing about that eviction itself.

Rent law attorney for arrears and evictions

However, the question of when the landlord may or may not refuse entry to a tenant is not always easy to answer. This varies from case to case. Are you troubled by a tenant in arrears? Then take contact up with the tenancy law lawyer of Lexys Lawyers. Who can help you find a solution.