The student housing complex on Duboisdomein was supposed to be ready for tenants in early January 2024, with around five hundred students having already signed rental agreements. But leaks, caused by water trapped in prefab concrete slabs, delayed completion. Two weeks before the scheduled completion date, just before Christmas, future tenants were informed that their brand-new studios wouldn’t be ready after all.
As a result, students faced unexpected costs, as became clear during Tuesday’s hearing in Maastricht. In an already tight housing market, they had to scramble for alternative accommodation that was not just more expensive but also unfurnished, unlike their new studios, one student explained. The six students are now seeking compensation from ECM Development, the owner of the student housing complex, for the additional expenses they incurred.
But had the students not taken a risk by giving up their old accommodation before the complex was officially completed? The judge put this question to them, pointing out that delays are not uncommon in new-build projects. “The students were given no indication whatsoever that this might happen”, their lawyer Xavier Stassen countered. “During viewings, they were assured everything was in order.” Besides, they had no choice, one student explained: “I couldn’t afford to pay rent for two places at once in January.”
Unfortunate
The owner of the complex, however, also didn’t find out until late December that the building was uninhabitable, ECM’s lawyer Huib Hielkema stated: the contractor, Hurks, had made construction errors and downplayed the severity of the leaks until this was no longer possible. Hielkema further argued that the students had been “unwise” to give up their old accommodation, citing a clause in their rental agreements with ECM stating that the start date would be postponed “if the rented property is unavailable due to not being completed on time” – a standard provision, according to ECM’s lawyer. “So ECM was fully within its rights to do this, even though the situation is unfortunate. The students were affected, but so was ECM. The company lost out on months of rental income [the building was eventually completed on 1 June] and incurred millions in additional costs.”
Battle it out
The students’ lawyer Stassen, however, argued that the clause did not apply in this case. “ECM failed to deliver and is now doing everything it can to shift the blame. The students shouldn’t have to bear the consequences of construction errors. As for the question of responsibility, ECM should battle it out with Hurks.”
ECM’s representatives hinted that the company might indeed take action against the contractor when asked about recovering its own substantial financial losses. As for the students, ECM maintained that the clause stands. The company has no plans to settle, as doing so would set a precedent. “If it was just about these six students, a settlement might’ve been an option. But what if five hundred others come knocking?”
The court’s ruling is expected by the end of May, but ECM has already drawn one conclusion: “There will be no winners in this case.”