landlord rent netherlands
I agreed on 1 year rent term while signing for 3 years and now landlord wants me to leave
<p>A year ago I started a room renting contract, where landlord asked me to stay there for 1 year maximum and I agreed. This was only accepted by my words and in written email but not signed. The written contract itself states that it lasts for 3 years, so legally I can live there for 2 more years I think. </p>

<p>Now landlord is asking me to leave the room because we agreed on 1 year length (the reason being, every year he is legally allowed to increase a price by little bit). I actually kind of like the room and would love to stay for at least half more year, but I think it's unethical from my point of view, but again he gave me 3 year written contract, so that's what matters, or is it possible that my email confirmation on 1 year is more important? Would it be ethical/fine to keep living there?</p>

<p>I know this isn't really finance related question, but I think it's fits this board most.</p>

<p>It's in The Netherlands by the way.</p>

<p>If it were me, I would leave.  Who wants to rent a room in a home where you are not wanted?  However, there should be concessions.  I would ask for 1.5 months rent refunded, but would happily settle for one month.  </p>

<p>I am sure there are many nice rooms, close by, where you are welcomed.</p>

<p>Given additional information commented by the OP, the landlord is looking to increase his rents.  Evidentially this municipality has strict rent controls.</p>

<p>In this case, I would enter negotiations with the landlord.  I would offer him a percentage of his anticipated rent increase and probably start at 50%.  If the OP has been a good tenant (always paid on time, and low maintenance) the landlord might see this as a bargain.  No need to find a new tenant and no need to vet one that might pay poorly.  The better the tenant has been, and the more strict the renter protection laws the more appeal this offer will have to the landlord.</p>

<p>The benefit for the OP is they don't have to move, or find a new place with its associated costs and inconvenience.  </p>

<p>If the landlord is just a mindless corporate drone with no decision making power, this will not work.</p>

<p>There appears to be an ambiguity here in exactly which terms apply. Under Dutch law, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra_proferentem" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Contra proferentem</em></a> principle can be applied. As the rental agreement is typically drafted by the landlord, the duty to avoid ambiguity lies on his side. Any remaining ambiguity will be resolved in favor of the other party, i.e. the renter.</p>
<p>A secondary and related principle is that a landlord typically acts in a professional capability, and therefore is held to higher standards.</p>

<p>You have a contract with ambiguous terms: a signed lease with a 3 year term and correspondence and a verbal agreement with a 1 year term.</p>

<p>None of these documents/verbal discussions is the contract; they are only evidence of the contract. The contract itself is what was agreed between the parties.</p>

<p>Based on your question, you are clear that what was agreed was a 1 year term: legally that is the term. For the term to legally be 3 years then, at the time the contract was formed, that would have to have been what you believed.</p>

<p>If you were to enter a dispute based on the written lease knowing that it was incorrect then you are wrong both legally and ethically. You could win such a dispute, particularly if the lease contained a term that said it was definitive or if it post-dates the correspondence. The question is: are you willing to behave illegally and unethically to do so? Certainly, if you were to give a statement you would have a choice between losing the case or perjuring yourself.</p>

<p>I am writing as an American, using American law as an "example" for your question, and I am not a lawyer.</p>

<p>In an American contract of this sort, you would be entitled to a lease of up to three years, but the landlord would be entitled to a rent increase of say, 5% in each of the second and third years. That is, the rent would be X in year 1, X+5% in year 2, x+10% in year 3. </p>

<p>From the sound of it, your landlord wants the rent escalation for year 2. So offer him the escalated year 2 rent for six months.  If you and the landlord both testified truthfully as to your oral conversations (which can be binding if the judge or jury believes them), that would be the likely result. Moreover, if you went to court in the Netherlands, the judge would look more favorably on you if you offered the escalated rent than if you tried to hold onto the lower year 1 rent.</p>

<p>This is a reasonable offer. If the landlord refused, he'd probably look "Unreasonable" in court.</p>
