Email to forward to all members of the House of Representatives: adjustments to recovery surgery - route B - complex cases - entrepreneurs - Finance Committee

At the beginning of this year, the report by the Van Dam Commission was published.

As of 1 July, changes in the recovery operation would be announced following the report.

I would like to ask you to pay extra attention to the following issues:

the children:

There is no recognition of liability for the consequences for the children of allowance parents.

This week, it was announced that the Cabinet acknowledges that there has been suffering that should not have occurred.

Currently, around 20 lawsuits are in preparation to recognize this liability. I would like to ask for your attention and help with this. Recently, I attended a VAR meeting, where the National Ombudsman and The Children's Ombudsman were also present. They also drew attention to the absence of children's rights in many government cases. In particular, I asked why this is not the case with the benefits affair. A step has been taken. It is far from enough. Our children have also suffered damage in their development, in their existence.

the entrepreneurs:

recognition of liability for the consequences for entrepreneurs who have been hampered by the actions of the tax authorities. The article that appeared in De Groene Amsterdammer about entrepreneurs who were victims of the benefits affair is entitled: • “Lost home, burnout and business bankrupt"• This longread paints poignant portraits of freelancers and sole traders (often with a migration background) who - often after recovery of childcare allowance - lost their business (and home), ended up in financial and mental problems and even left home experienced placement or burnout (groene.nl) .• The researcher spoke to more than forty affected entrepreneurs; around eighty percent closed the case and a quarter of them suffered damage between one and three million, while another quarter even exceeded three million (groene.nl).

1. “Lost home, burnout and company bankrupt” (De Groene Amsterdammer)

Key points

• The article describes the devastating consequences of the benefits affair for entrepreneurs, especially self-employed people with a migration background

• Many parents had sole traders or small businesses, and the additional taxes from the tax authorities (often tens of thousands of euros) led to the immediate closure of their business.

• Almost none of this group received timely help, debt counseling was unreachable, and recovery operations took years.

Impact on entrepreneurs

• Nearly 80% of the interviewees had to terminate their business• Some suffered damages of between 1 and 3 million euros, while another quarter even exceeded 3 million.

• Entrepreneurs were not only financially strapped, but also had to deal with burnouts, child removals, and long-term psychological damage.

Structural misunderstanding

• The government and recovery agencies initially only recognized parenting-related damage.

• For a long time, business damage was not seen as an independent damage area.

• Many victims were even suspected of fraud by authorities, so they were not eligible for (timely) help.

2. “For entrepreneurs who lost everything due to the benefits affair, there is still no compensation” (De Groene Amsterdammer/Headliner, April 2025)

Key points• Despite political promises, there is still no appropriate compensation for entrepreneurs.

• The Actual Injury Commission (CWS) is overburdened, slow and not transparent, which means that many applications are missed.

• Some entrepreneurs have been waiting for three to four years to acknowledge their damage.

Government response

• State Secretary Sandra Palmen announced an accelerated recovery method in early 2025,

but this only applies to a limited number of parents.

• Complex business loss is often rejected or postponed to lengthy assessment processes without clear criteria.

• WOB requests and reports show that the ministry is deliberately slow and opaque in recognizing entrepreneurs' claims for damages.

Analysis in a broader perspective

1. Structural misunderstanding of the self-employed

The articles show that the recovery policy was initially designed for working, salaried parents.

- not for the self-employed. As a result, an entire group of victims fell between chairs.

2. Institutional distrust persists

Even after acknowledging the injustice, the system remains suspicious of entrepreneurs, especially when it comes to “large amounts”. The suggestion of fraud remains implicit in the review.

3. Psychosocial damage underestimated In addition to financial losses, both articles highlight deep, long-term mental damage. Many victims suffer from PTSD-like symptoms, chronic stress, and feelings of unworthiness.

4. Failing recovery policy Both documents provide a crystal clear picture of how the current recovery policy lacks pace, empathy and customization, especially for entrepreneurs. The government does not seem to understand or recognize their unique position enough.

Conclusion

These journalistic productions show that entrepreneurs are a forgotten group of victims in the benefits affair. Despite some policy changes, there remains serious slowness, arbitrariness and insufficient recovery. The right to recognition, compensation and perspective is thus systematically undermined.

• the state of play with regard to improvements in the recovery operation:

I would like to pay attention to three things here:

• The description of the parents' story. This is best done via a front portal as it has now been realized: the Kota report. Parents feel recognized and the result of the report is also very important for claims handling. In addition, children must also be recognized.

• The Objections Advisory Committee plays an important role in determining what is not going well. This BAC must be able to continue to fulfil its role.

• The “forgotten” LIC lists. Many parents are missing a file. The file also lacks an overview of the settlements that have taken place.

In my own experience, it appears that an overview can only be made for a period of 10 years and that if asked about this, the remaining years will not be provided. Not even the business settlements. The Rotterdam District Court has recently issued a number of rulings about this. Files also miss the reason why parents were selected. The FSV information is also not always provided. This is even less so for business companies.