An independent expert has determined that the valid energy label is incorrect in another hundred rental properties in Groningen. As a result, those tenants pay about 135 euros too much rent per month. How is that possible?
This is evident from research by Robin Hood (legal service provider specialized in tenancy law from Groningen) and Stadsblog Sikkom . This would mean that those tenants paid a total of almost 1 million euros too much in recent years.
What’s up with that? Energy labels are an important pillar under the maximum legal rental price and when determining those labels (the higher the label, the higher the rental price because of low energy costs), something often goes wrong, as is evident from several legally valid rulings by the Rent Assessment Committee. Pronkjewail previously settled with tenants because they had paid too much rent in Groningen for years.
In the current study, several homes in Boersema and Roeloffs were examined by an independent energy label expert. On paper, the apartments, spread over four locations on Heinsiusstraat (old Hamrik school), Jonkerstraat, Eendrachtskade and Grote Appelstraat in the city of Groningen, all have a favorable label.
But that turns out to be incorrect in at least 99 cases. For example, one of the houses of 27 square meters examined has a label A and a monthly energy bill of 280 euros. b During the inspection, insulation was specified that was not present in the buildings. The labels therefore drop from A, B to E, D and F. According to the legal points system on which the maximum rent is based, this saves 135 euros in rent per home per month. For years.
Only room for 6 centimeters of insulation
The homes are owned by Boersma and Roeloffs, two landlords from South Holland who own hundreds of homes in Amsterdam and Groningen, among others. The energy labels were issued years ago by Ruben Ludwig of 050 Vastgoed from Groningen and according to this party 12 centimeters of insulation material in the walls of the old Hamrik school. That is not the case. In fact, there is only room for 6 centimeters of insulation.
Yoeri Delfstra from Robin Hood: “The difference between 6 or 12 centimeters is the difference between an A and D, E or F label. At Grote Appelstraat the facade was also extra insulated, according to the official recording forms completed by Ludwig, but when we inserted the 180 degree camera into the cavity wall, there appeared to be nothing there. The Eendrachtskade turned out to have no facade insulation, contrary to what Ludwig claimed.”
With the results of the independent investigation in hand, the tenants are now filing a case with the Rent Tribunal together with Robin Hood. This still needs to be dealt with, but according to Yoeri the ball can only roll one way: the tenants will be vindicated. “The labels are simply wrong and that is easily demonstrable.”
Who actually approves those energy labels?
The labels were determined by Ludwig and his lawyer Bertil Westers of Bout Advocaten explains how he worked. In addition to his own observation, Ludwig also used reports on renovation years, construction drawings and commitments from building owners. An important part of all the documents that Ludwig’s lawyer forwards are the statements from Ecocert and Buildinglabel. These statements need explanation.
The entire system of energy labels is managed by the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations. Recognized organizations such as Ecocert and Buildinglabel are allowed to enter the labels in the national register and work with inspectors such as Ludwig, who was affiliated with first Buildinglabel and then Ecocert.
From email exchange – in the hands of Stadsblog Sikkom and Dagblad van het Noorden – it turns out that the labels rely on promises, but also on paper reality. For example, Ecocert emails about the labels of the buildings in question : “The facade insulation and HR++ glazing are substantiated with drawings, details and photos. What is missing, however, is the burden of proof for the chosen insulation value for roof and floor insulation. I do not see this on the specifications and drawings and I also do not see any photos of this in the file.”
“Usual procedure”
And that seems to be the cause of the wrong labels. It is assumed that insulation is present because it is a renovated school building and because the building owner has indicated that it contains certain insulation values. But Robin Hood’s research shows that this insulation is lacking.
According to Maarten den Ouden of Ecocert, there is probably no malicious intent behind this. “The files are at least eight years old, things were different then than they are now. For example, there were only five evidence photos in the recording of the old Hamrik school, nowadays you have to add fifty photos. In addition, it was common and permitted at the time to work on the basis of renovation years, construction drawings and commitments from the owner. If this shows that there is 10 centimeters of insulation in the wall, you can give up. But that is not possible.”
The fault, Den Ouden thinks, lies more with the owner who provided the construction drawings. This is in line with what Ludwig’s lawyer states: “There is no question of deliberate and reprehensible actions by clients, even in the case of discrepancies and inaccuracies regarding the possible factual situation.”
Boersma’s response (via lawyer Christiaan Alberdingk Thijm)
“BB Group (owner’s company, ed.) has taken note of the findings of Enerkorp, the energy label expert engaged by Robin Hood. Enerkorp’s reports show energy labels from 8.5 to 10 years old. These labels have reached the end of their validity (10 years) and must be re-evaluated. We currently do this with our own energy label advisor. This will also advise on points for improvement, so that the homes can be made more sustainable.
BB Group has had the labels established in the past drawn up by a competent energy label advisor. As far as we know, the energy label advisor always carries out a building inspection when granting a label. The energy label advisor’s data and calculations are then checked by a certified body. These safeguards prevent a homeowner from manipulating an energy label by providing incorrect information. We therefore cannot follow Mr Ludwig’s claim that, as an energy label consultant, he would not have carried out a building inspection in the past.”