A room in Groningen can be cheaper than one in Amsterdam and still be illegally expensive.
That distinction became impossible to ignore in August 2026. Investigative programme Argos examined 119 rooms advertised in Groningen through Kamernet and estimated that 53% were offered above the maximum rent permitted by the points system. Among the overpriced Groningen rooms, landlords asked an average of €76 per month too much.
For a student paying that average excess for a year, the difference is €912. It is money that could otherwise cover groceries, health insurance, textbooks or an unexpected bicycle repair.
The result is particularly significant because municipalities have been responsible for enforcing maximum rents since 1 January 2025. Groningen has a reporting centre, a tenant-support organisation and a detailed sanctions policy. What is less visible is how often those instruments actually produce inspections, corrected rents and money returned to tenants.
The law has changed. The balance of power inside the room has not necessarily changed with it.
What the 53% figure proves—and what it does not
Argos studied 2,637 Kamernet advertisements across the Netherlands during July and August 2026. Nationally, 59% of the rooms were estimated to be too expensive, with landlords asking an average of €239 per month above the legal maximum on the overpriced listings.
In Groningen, 119 advertisements were examined. Approximately 53%—about 63 rooms, allowing for rounding—were too expensive. The average excess for those rooms was €76 per month.
The Groningen figure is lower than in Amsterdam, where 97% of examined rooms were too expensive. That does not make the local result acceptable. Legal compliance is not a competition between cities.
The study is also not a census of every room in Groningen. It covers advertisements on one large commercial platform during a limited period. Corporation rooms, informal offers and rooms found through personal networks are not fully represented. Calculations based on advertisements can also be affected when a listing omits information needed for a precise points assessment.
The findings should therefore not be used to claim that exactly 53% of every occupied student room in Groningen is illegal. They do establish something narrower and still serious: in a substantial sample of rooms publicly offered to students at the start of the academic year, more than half appeared to exceed the legal maximum.
Read the Argos investigation and the Groningen-specific results reported by OOG.
An average rent does not reveal whether a rent is legal
Two months before the Argos findings appeared, Groningen’s municipal executive rejected calls for additional measures after Kamernet reported that the average advertised room price had risen by 12.6% in one year, reaching €580 per month in the first quarter of 2026.
The municipality argued that Groningen remained in the middle of the national ranking. It also noted that Kamernet does not include many cheaper corporation rooms and informal offers. Provincial data from Pararius showed a much smaller annual increase.
Those qualifications are reasonable when discussing an average market price. They do not answer the legal question raised by Argos.
The maximum rent for a room is not determined by whether Groningen is cheaper than Amsterdam, Maastricht or Utrecht. It is determined by the room’s own points: its size, facilities, shared spaces, number of occupants, energy performance and other characteristics included in the housing valuation system.
A €580 room can be legal when its points support that rent. A €450 room can be illegal when its legal maximum is €350.
Provincial price-per-square-metre data also combine different locations and types of housing. They cannot establish whether an individual Groningen room complies with the room-rent points system.
In June, the alderman said existing communication—including promotion during the KEI introduction period and the online rent check—was sufficient. The August findings now create a new question: if 53% of the examined advertisements appeared too expensive, is informing students that they can complain an adequate enforcement strategy?
Every student room already has a legal ceiling
Rooms with shared facilities are classified as onzelfstandige woonruimte, or non-self-contained accommodation. Unlike genuinely liberalised housing, student rooms are always subject to a maximum basic rent calculated through the points system.
Since 1 January 2025, a landlord concluding a new contract must provide the tenant with the room’s points calculation. This should show how the maximum basic rent was determined.
The basic rent, or kale huur, must be separated from service costs. Electricity, gas, internet, furniture and cleaning do not create permission to increase the basic rent beyond its legal ceiling. Service costs must correspond to permitted, genuinely incurred expenses and should be accounted for separately.
A room offered as one unexplained “all-in” amount makes verification harder. It does not make the points system disappear.
The official Huurcommissie rent check asks for details including the private room area, shared areas, facilities, WOZ value and number of housemates. Its result is an initial calculation, not automatically a binding ruling. In a formal case, the Huurcommissie can arrange its own assessment.
The complaint paradox
Groningen’s enforcement policy recognises that room rents are “relatively high and often too high.” It also says the municipality will take enforcement action when a report reveals a rent above the permitted maximum.
That creates a structural weakness: detection depends heavily on the tenant.
A national-government profile of Groningen’s reporting centre says tenants frequently report intimidation only at a late stage because they are afraid of losing their accommodation. The same fear can affect rent complaints. A student who has spent months searching, paid a deposit and finally registered at an address may not feel free to challenge the person controlling that home.
International students face additional barriers. They may not understand the difference between the municipality, Huurcommissie and Steunpunt Huren. They may assume that a signed contract makes every clause legal or that disputing the rent could affect their residence status, registration or university enrolment.
The result is a complaint paradox:
- the city needs reports to identify violations;
- the tenant has the strongest evidence;
- the tenant also carries the immediate risk of conflict;
- a low number of complaints can therefore mean low awareness or high fear, not high compliance.
In a 2025 survey of 158 municipalities by the Dutch tenants’ association Woonbond, Groningen reported 236 landlord-related notifications during 2024—the second-highest total among participating municipalities. These covered different forms of landlord behaviour, not only excessive rent. Intimidation and disputed service costs were the most frequently reported problems nationally.
The figure shows that Groningen’s reporting centre is used. It does not reveal how many potentially illegal room rents remain unreported.
Groningen has sanctions on paper
Groningen’s enforcement policy, effective since 1 January 2026, contains specific penalty amounts for excessive rent.
For a first offence involving a room, the standard penalty levels range from:
- €1,000 to €4,250 for a non-commercial landlord, depending on the percentage by which the rent exceeds the maximum;
- €2,000 to €8,500 for a commercial landlord;
- higher amounts for repeated violations.
Failing to provide a legally required points calculation can itself lead to a standard first-offence penalty of €2,000 for a non-commercial landlord or €4,250 for a commercial operator.
The enforcement route is graduated. In many cases, the municipality first issues an order backed by a penalty payment. An immediate administrative fine is specified for serious categories, repeated offences and rent exceeding the legal maximum by more than 25%.
The policy is detailed enough to deter a landlord who expects to be inspected. Its effect is weaker when the probability of detection is unknown.
Groningen does publish a sanctions overview, but a list of final sanctions does not show the entire enforcement pipeline. Citizens also need to know how many rent reports were received, investigated and substantiated; how many landlords corrected the rent after contact; how many orders were imposed; and how much illegal rent was repaid.
Without those numbers, an empty or short sanctions list can mean either widespread compliance or insufficient detection.
Read Groningen’s current enforcement policy and penalty tables.
One fine shows both the strength and the limit of enforcement
Groningen has demonstrated that it can use its powers in an extreme case. It became the first Dutch municipality to impose an administrative penalty under the Good Landlordship Act for landlord intimidation.
After a student complex was sold, the new owner attempted to make existing tenants leave. According to the national housing authority’s account, new occupants were brought in and instructed to make life unpleasant for the original residents. The municipality ultimately imposed the maximum first-offence penalty at the time: €25,750.
That intervention matters. It establishes that intimidation inside a rental relationship can produce a serious public sanction rather than being dismissed as a private disagreement.
But the outcome also illustrates why enforcement after a complaint is not always enough. The original tenants had already left by the time the process concluded.
A formally successful case can still come too late to preserve the home of the people the law was intended to protect.
Read the official account of the Groningen intimidation case.
Tenant support changes the odds
National Huurcommissie figures show why access to assistance matters. In 2025, the commission handled more than 16,000 disputes, and tenants were awarded approximately €15.5 million in rent and service-cost corrections.
Tenants supported by a local rent team won 81% of their cases. This does not mean every tenant with support automatically has a valid claim. Rent teams help select cases, assemble documents and present the evidence correctly—precisely the tasks that can overwhelm a tenant unfamiliar with Dutch law.
Service costs are another significant source of overpayment. In 2025, more than 4,500 service-cost disputes were decided nationally. Tenants succeeded in slightly more than 2,800, with the annual bill reduced by an average of €780 in those successful cases.
These are national figures and cannot be converted into a Groningen total. They demonstrate that overcharging is not merely theoretical and that the outcome often changes when charges are independently tested.
See the 2025 Huurcommissie results summarised by the Woonbond.
The city should inspect advertisements, not only tenants
A public advertisement is available before a student becomes financially and administratively dependent on the room. That makes listings a logical place for preventive enforcement.
Groningen does not need to inspect every advertisement manually. A risk-based system could identify listings that lack a points calculation, use an unexplained all-in price or appear far above the probable legal maximum for their size.
The municipality could then request the calculation from the landlord before the room changes hands. Repeated listings from the same address or operator could be grouped, allowing one investigation to protect more than one tenant.
Rotterdam’s experience shows the difference between passive and proactive enforcement. Argos found a high proportion of apparently overpriced rooms there as well, but the municipality had intervened hundreds of times on its own initiative. A high violation rate is not proof that enforcement has failed, but documented proactive inspections demonstrate that detection does not rest entirely on individual tenants.
Platforms also have a role. At minimum, room advertisements should contain:
- the basic rent;
- estimated service costs;
- room and shared-space measurements;
- the official points calculation;
- the resulting maximum basic rent;
- the landlord or agent’s legal identity;
- whether registration is permitted.
A platform may not make the final legal determination, but it should not make lawful pricing unnecessarily difficult to verify.
Five numbers Groningen should publish every quarter
The municipality already collects reports and maintains enforcement files. A quarterly dashboard could turn that work into public accountability without identifying individual tenants.
It should disclose:
- the number of complaints about excessive basic rent;
- the number of properties inspected following those complaints;
- the number of proactive rent inspections;
- the number and value of rent corrections, orders and penalties;
- the time between a report and the first substantive action.
Results should distinguish rooms from independent apartments and separate rent cases from intimidation, deposits, discrimination and service-cost disputes.
The dashboard should also report whether the tenant remained in the property. A rent reduction obtained only after someone has been forced to move is not the same policy outcome as a corrected tenancy that continues safely.
How a Groningen student can check a room
A student does not need to accuse the landlord before checking the figures.
First, save the original advertisement, contract, payment records and any points calculation supplied by the landlord. Record the basic rent separately from service costs.
Measure the private room and note which kitchen, bathroom and living areas are shared. Record the number of residents and look up the property’s WOZ value through the official register. Enter the information in the Huurcommissie rent check.
If the result suggests that the rent is too high, contact Steunpunt Huren Groningen. Its staff can review the calculation, conduct another assessment at the property, communicate with the landlord and help start a Huurcommissie procedure.
A report can also be submitted to Groningen’s Meldpunt Ongewenst Verhuurgedrag when the landlord appears to breach the rent rules, withhold required information, charge improper service costs, demand an excessive deposit or use intimidation.
The municipality and Huurcommissie have different roles. A municipal investigation can enforce public landlord rules and impose sanctions. The Huurcommissie can make a decision about the individual rent or service-cost dispute. In some cases, using both routes may be appropriate.
Students should not simply stop paying the disputed amount without advice or a formal decision. That can create alleged rent arrears and shift the dispute onto more dangerous ground.
Steunpunt Huren Groningen explains the local rent-check process.
What this investigation can and cannot conclude
The Argos sample does not prove that every second occupied room in Groningen is currently charged illegally. It does not include the entire market, and StudentNoord has not independently inspected the 119 properties.
It does provide strong evidence that excessive asking rents remain common on a major student platform more than a year after municipal rent enforcement began.
The official documents add a second finding. Groningen has the legal tools, penalty schedule and local support infrastructure to intervene, but its published information does not yet show whether those tools are correcting the market at the scale indicated by the advertisement research.
The city’s position in a national price ranking is secondary. The important comparison is between the basic rent demanded for each room and the maximum allowed for that room.
A law that works only after the most vulnerable party identifies the violation, understands three separate institutions, collects the evidence and risks conflict with a scarce landlord is not yet fully enforced.
The test for Groningen is therefore simple: when the next academic year begins, will fewer illegal prices appear in public listings—or will students once again be told to calculate the law after they have already signed?
