Currently, at least eighteen municipalities in the Netherlands apply a form of police screening of house hunters (see this schedule).

Landlords ask, sometimes via local authorities, the police for their opinion about a house hunter. The police check what details are known about the person referred to and give advice about the house hunter's "living risk."

The criteria that are used to screen tenants vary per municipality. In some of them, they are screened on criminal antecedents in a broad sense, such as fraud, crimes against property, handling stolen property, drug-related crimes, prostitution, women trafficking, and sexual offenses. In other municipalities, screening is exclusively on noisiness, misconduct or violence in the near environment of the house.

Telephone Call

Sometimes, house hunters receive only one phone call telling them they have no permission to rent. It is impossible to object, because the municipal or police assessment is not an official decision.

Police say they base their screening on Article 16 and Article 20 of the Police Information Act (WPG), under which police are allowed to pass on information in order to maintain public order. However, according to Stef Blok, minister for housing and central government sector, this is not allowed.

According to him, the WPG "doesn't offer a legal basis to refuse housing to those looking for living accommodations." The minister also noted that currently, "there [are] no preventive options that aim [to] head off a bothersome or criminal house hunter from moving into a living accommodation."

Minister wants practice legalized

With a new amendment (explanation), Minister Blok wants to give this screening practice a legal basis. This amendment is presently being dealt with in Parliament, but the main government advisory body, the Netherlands Council of State, holds the view that the minister should withdraw the amendment:

"Selective appointing of housing through screening results in a serious infringement on the fundamental rights to freedom of establishment, the free traffic of people and the respect of the personal privacy of the house hunters. The Department [the advisory branch of the Council of State] states that the necessity of the proposal has insufficiently been proven because the facts about the nature, size and seriousness of the issue are lacking. Besides, it has not motivated with support that the activation of these far-reaching inquiries is proportional. Finally, the Department concludes that the effectiveness of the proposal has not been demonstrated convincingly."

Furthermore, the Council writes that it finds it too drastic that someone is being judged on an overview of available police data. Because it is difficult to determine the truthfulness of these data. A report on disturbance needn't always be true or be caused by the person referred to. Besides, phrases such as "disruptive behavior" or "noisy nuisance" are vague and very subjective.

Parliament not convinced either

D66 (Democrats), ChristenUnie (Christian Union), SP (Socialists), and CDA (Christian Democrats) are still not convinced and have many questions about the necessity and efficacy of the measures. D66 observes that apparently some 380 municipalities don't use screening and manage to prevent livability issues in a different way.

VVD (Liberals) are the only ones saying they support the bill: "The importance of a safe living environment [weighs] amply against the restriction of other fundamental rights." Other parties didn't submit any questions about the bill.

As an alternative to such an in-depth investigation, the municipality may choose for a less far-reaching screening. The house hunter is "only" demanded a certificate of conduct (VOG). It is less far-reaching because in a VOG, only behaviors for which the house hunter actually has been prosecuted may be included.

This contribution was done by Privacy Barometer.