Peter Gillis’ Oostappen Groep must pay damages

Peter Gillis' Oostappen Group must compensation pay to the buyer of a chalet. This was decided by the District Court of East Brabant (ECLI:NL:RBOBR:2025:5727) on September 11, 2025. According to the purchaser, the operator of Vacation Park Prinsenmeer (which is the Oostappen Group) had lost its duty of disclosure towards the buyer of a chalet violated. That buyer, a former tenant, claimed damages because he had not been informed about the impending closure of the vacation park. Despite the fact that the Oostappen Group was not the seller, the buyer was vindicated. Real estate law attorney Robert van Ewijk discusses the verdict.

Oostappen Group subject to Bibob investigation

Peter Gillis' vacation parks have long been under a magnifying glass from the government. Oostappen, among others, operates vacation park Prinsenmeer in the municipality of Asten. Permits are required to operate a vacation park. The municipality of Asten is the competent authority for this. In May 2022, the municipality of Asten launched a Bibob investigation (ex Article 7a Public Administration Integrity Assessment Act) to operations.

Bibob outcome relevant to permits for Prinsenmeer vacation park

Soon, by letter dated August 10, 2022, the municipality made it clear to Oostappen that the results of this investigation would determine the operating license. On January 3, 2023, the municipality received the results of the Bibob investigation. On May 1, 2023, Oostappen applied for the license and the municipality expressed its intention to reject it on May 24, 2023. Thus, the risk of closure had been known to Oostappen for quite some time.

Buy chalet and rent pitch on park Prinsenmeer from Oostappen Group

Meanwhile, in the summer of 2023, a man from Roermond (hereinafter: the buyer) bought a chalet on a plot at the park. In addition, he concluded a rental agreement with Oostappen. For this he paid as much as €5,000 in ‘permission fees. For the chalet on the plot, he paid the previous owner an amount of €51,000. He also made various investments in the chalet and the pitch.

Permit from Prinsenmeer vacation park revoked

On December 5, 2023, the municipality finally decided not to grant the necessary permits and ordered Oostappen to cease operation as of December 8, 2023. The brand new buyer of the chalet was given two days to vacate his new chalet. He had to pack his belongings and could no longer use his chalet and pitch from that moment on. The park was still closed at the time of the court hearing.

Purchaser of chalet sues vacation park for damages

The buyer argued that Oostappen wrongful conduct has by failing to warn him of the real risk of closing the park, even though he made substantial investments. There was also a failure to comply with the rental agreement, because Prinsenmeer no longer provided him with rental enjoyment. Oostappen defended itself by arguing that there was no duty of disclosure, that the buyer himself was also at fault, and that he ‘Must have been living under a rock’ if he was not aware of it. In addition, Oostappen believed that there was own fault on the part of the buyer, because he could have sued the seller of the chalet for damages.

Subdistrict court orders Oostappen to pay damages

The Subdistrict Court gave short shrift to Oostappen's defense. According to the court, an unwritten rule of law applies in society: a party that has knowledge of a real risk, such as the possible closure of a vacation park, must inform a consumer. Especially if they are making significant investments. This duty to inform takes precedence even over the duty to investigate of the buyer.

Landlord had to inform tenant of impending vacation park closure

For Oostappen, the real risk of closure had been known since May 11, 2022, when the Bibob investigation began. Oostappen was additionally aware of the buyer's plans for buying and renting. The cantonal court rejected all of Oostappen's defenses. The claim that the buyer already knew or should have known was found implausible and insufficiently substantiated. The appeal to the buyer's own fault was rejected due to insufficient substantiation. The buyer's own fault was also rejected; the buyer was not obliged to first address the seller of the chalet.

Compensation for buyer chalet (and tenant plot)

Oostappen was ordered to pay several items of damages. The buyer had overpaid rent since December 8, 2023. The subdistrict court awarded over three thousand euros for overpaid rent and nearly five hundred euros for energy costs. The claim for reimbursement of the consent fees the buyer had paid for taking over the pitch was awarded in full. However, the damages from the purchase could not be accurately estimated, so the judge left this later formatting at state. To do so, a so-called damage state proceedings be conducted. The claim for repayment of all investments made by the buyer was rejected because Oostappen was not aware of the investments and the costs had not been made sufficiently plausible.

Oostappen must pay a total of €9,312.26, plus statutory interest, plus damages for the purchase of the chalet, which will be determined later. Oostappen must also pay the extrajudicial collection costs and litigation costs.

Lawyer in dispute with vacation park and seller of chalet

This ruling emphasizes that not only the seller, but also other parties directly involved in a transaction have a duty of disclosure. When there are real risks that can affect investments, buyers/tenants must be informed in a timely and complete manner. Failure to do so can lead to significant claims for damages. For Peter Gillis and his companies, this is yet another setback in recent years.