Three brothers demand from Ymere that at least their youngest brother be allowed to continue living in the social housing where they lived with their recently deceased mother. The brothers say that they already paid the rent and that there was a ‘sustainable shared household’. However, Ymere says that the youngest brother did not actually live in the house and that it is not at all clear that the costs were borne jointly. The case was discussed in court this week.
The brothers state that their youngest brother actually lived there and helped around the house. After completing his studies, the man returned to live at home in 2012 to care for his mother and the household tasks were also divided. From 2018 onwards, the youngest brother did almost all the shopping, which he also paid for himself, and later he also became an informal caregiver. In 2020 and 2022, the other brothers also returned to the house and helped pay the rent and groceries. A renovation was self-financed.
The mother died in September of last year and the brothers want the youngest to continue living in the home. The rent of approximately 670 euros can be paid and, according to the brothers, it would be clear that it was the brother’s main residence and that it was also a shared household.
Ymere sees the matter differently
Ymere decided to terminate the lease at the end of 2022 and does not agree with the brothers about continuing the lease. According to the housing association, there was no question of the brothers having the house as their main residence and there was also no shared household, but there was ‘a one-sided care relationship in which a certain bond of fate brought the parties together’.
According to Ymere, it is also not at all clear that the brothers helped pay the rent and groceries, as according to the brothers this was done with cash. The last point that the housing association raises is that, according to the Housing Regulations, the home should be allocated to a family with at least three minor children and the youngest brother does not meet this requirement. Ymere would also not want to adapt the house. The brothers indicated that they all wanted to continue living in the house, plus the eldest brother’s partner and future child.
The main residence
The subdistrict court judge is of the opinion that it is clear that the youngest brother lived in the house with his mother and that this was his main residence. He was registered from 2012 and several statements from local residents and family members confirm this.
The judge also stated that the brothers could make it sufficiently clear that there was a ‘long-term shared household’. Although it was not enough to prove that he paid for the groceries, the energy contract and other statements – such as from the renovation – with his name above were enough. “This indicates a certain degree of financial interdependence between him and his mother,” the subdistrict court judge said.
No clarity yet
Even though the subdistrict court judge considered the brothers’ points proven, it is not yet clear whether the youngest brother will be allowed to stay in the home. Because the current situation of the youngest brother does not fit into the Housing Regulations, this must first be looked into. The question also remains whether the brothers jointly qualify as a household within the meaning of the regulation.
According to the judge, this must first be decided by Ymere itself, but also possibly by the city’s mayor and alderman. The administrative judge may even have to consider it. The subdistrict court judge cannot therefore decide for itself whether to continue the agreement. Until then, the previously made decisions will be maintained.
2023-12-16 18:04:06
#Brothers #continue #living #home #deceased #mother #Ymere
