Pma Realestate Reviews 

PMA Real Estate managed the apartment that I used to rent. Back then it was called PropertyByCase and managed solely by Mr Kees Peerdeman. Now it's a bigger company, but Mr Peerdeman is still running it.

## Unlawful contract fees

My rental contract allowed me to live in the apartment with one other person, although I needed permission to change co-tenant. I had no issue with that requirement and always asked for permission. However, after my first co-tenant change, PMA charged me 181.50 to change the name on the rental contract.

The first time they did this, I asked for an explanation, and I got a very brief and unhelpful reply. I paid anyway, because I needed the apartment and I had to share the rent.

When PMA charged me this amount a second time, I refused. I also asked them to refund the 181.50 I had already paid. I explained that charging tenants for preparing or amending a rental contract is not permitted under Dutch law. I supported my position with information from the Dutch government and references to the Dutch Civil Code (Burgerlijk Wetboek). After I complained to the city of The Hague, they even sent a letter to PMA that agreed with my position.

None of this convinced Mr Peerdeman. In my experience, he became increasingly angry and unreasonable during our correspondence. He and the owner of the apartment actually said they would no longer give permission for a co-tenant, regardless of whether I paid the 181.50. I felt they were putting pressure on me to pay the costs I believe to be unlawful, instead of trying to resolve the matter in a reasonable manner. At one point, Mr Peerdeman actually threatened to charge me money to read my emails.

At that point, I decided not to pursue a refund of the first 181.50 any further. The amount did not seem worth the effort anymore. I did refuse to pay the second 181.50 though, and PMA cancelled that invoice.

## Unsubstantiated deposit deduction

Fast forward to when I moved out of the apartment.
There were two inspections: a pre-checkout inspection and a final inspection.

The apartment got a cleanliness score of 4 out of 5 during the pre-checkout inspection,
with no outstanding tasks for me to clean or repair anything.

During the final inspection, the inspector did note calcium deposits on the shower. These were already present during the pre-checkout. If it was a problem it should have been noted as an action point for me in the first inspection, so I could have fixed it before the final inspection. But the inspector indicated that, in his opinion, no deduction from my deposit would be necessary.

I subsequently received my deposit back minus a 250 deduction for cleaning costs.

The only explanation was the description "deposit minus cleaning fee" in the bank transfer. I received no email or phone call, and I received no overview of the work done or the what the money was spent on.

When I contacted PMA about this, Mr Peerdeman became angry again and refused to discuss the matter constructively. I then asked a lawyer to help me, and while Mr Peerdeman replied more calmly to the lawyer, he still essentially ignored all the claims and arguments presented to him.

I strongly suspect that Mr Peerdeman deducted the 250 because he was still angry about the 181.50 charge that I had refused to pay.

## Lawsuit

Eventually I filed a lawsuit against the owner of the apartment with the sub-district court (kantonrechter) in The Hague. Although my dealings were mostly with PMA, it's the landlord who is legally responsible in this matter. For that reason, it's also the landlord that I had to sue, and not PMA.

As I understand it, the landlord was also Mr Peerdeman's partner. So the distinction did not really matter too much to me.

When the deadline for a response approached, just before the lawsuit would actually be referred to a judge, the landlord finally agreed to all my demands.

This included the refund of the first 181.50 contract fee, the 250 deducted from my deposit, as well as debt collection costs, the bailiff's fees, the court fees and interest on the debt.

Funnily enough, these were precisely the additional costs that I warned Mr Peerdeman about in our initial conversations about the 181.50. Yet it took the prospect of actual legal proceedings to resolve the dispute.

I should probably also thank Mr Peerdeman for being so unreasonable in our email conversations. I believe those conversations would have essentially proved our entire case for us if it had actually ended up in front of a judge.

If you find yourself in a similar situation, try organisations like "de Woonbond", "het Juridisch Loket" and the "meldpunt goed verhuurderschap" of your municipality.

/edit: I always asked for permission for new co-tenants, and it was PMA that wanted the contract changed. It was only resolved last June.