Allowing random parking spaces to be used in exchange for payment; the question is whether or not this constitutes rent


Annotation to the judgment of the Dordrecht Subdistrict Court dated 6 June 2019, TvHB 2019/19 (UDH: TvHB/15771)

This judgment focuses on the question as to whether the agreement on the basis of which the Municipality of Dordrecht allows 100 random parking spaces in a car park to be used for a longer period of time in exchange for payment qualifies as a rental agreement. The user is not entitled to specific parking spaces. The reason for these proceedings was that the municipality accused the user of a breach of that agreement; the municipality required performance and instituted proceedings against the user.

At the start of the proceedings, the question that arose was whether this agreement qualified as a rental agreement. The subdistrict court analysed the circumstances and concluded that it did.

Did the subdistrict court set the right criterion? That is doubtful. An analysis is made in this annotation, on the basis of legal methodology, legislative history and case law, as to whether the qualification of this agreement as a ‘rental agreement’ is correct. The outcome is that the subdistrict court wrongly qualified the agreement as a ‘rental agreement’.

Are you interested in this contribution that is stated below? Would you like to discuss this in more detail with Ivette Mol or one of the other people of the lease law team? Please do not hesitate to contact us.

View article (pdf)