Allowances scandal

A repeat of the benefits scandal is imminent, judge fears

The rules that benefit parents must comply with in order to be helped are not realistic and do not pay enough attention to the human touch. This is what the court in Amsterdam states.

Emiel Hakkenes August 30, 2024, 9:43 PM

The judge in Amsterdam denounces the attitude of politicians in the benefits scandal and the Council of State, which, as supreme administrative judge, assesses whether the law is being applied correctly. According to the Amsterdam judge, they opt for “a minimalist application and strict interpretation of the law”, while the cabinet has just promised to help affected parents “generously”, “timely” and “adequately” — as stated in the explanation of the Recovery Operation Surcharges Act.

Take over debts

Last Thursday, the judge ruled in the case of a duped parent against the Ministry of Finance. In order to be able to pay (unfairly) recovered childcare allowance, the woman went into debt to the bank for almost 25,000 euros. Repaying such debts often causes benefit parents new problems. For that reason, they can ask the government to take over the debt from them.

There are conditions attached to this. For loans that benefit parents have taken out from friends or family, for example, the government only takes over if the loan is laid down in a notarial deed.

At the beginning of this year, the Council of State ruled in two lawsuits on this issue that the requirement for a notary deed can indeed feel unfair; there are only six known examples of parents who had their informal debt recorded with the notary throughout the Netherlands. But, according to the Council of State: the legislator intended the rules exactly that way, to have proof that the debt exists.

Replay of how the benefits scandal started

This attitude, as the Amsterdam judge wrote in his ruling last Thursday, seems like a repetition of how the benefits scandal began: the tax authorities, which are rigid and are ultimately right by the Council of State. “In the opinion of this judge, there is (again) too little attention for the practice of everyday reality.”

In the case of the woman who borrowed 25,000 euros from the bank, the government did not want to take over that debt, because her payment arrears on 1 June 2021 were not so great that the bank immediately claimed the loan amount. This still happened on August 29 of that year, but then the period within which allowance parents can ask the government for help was over.

Tangle of procedures

The Amsterdam judge rejects the woman's demand that her debt be taken over after all. In doing so, he is “forced” to be guided by the previous strict rulings of the highest judge, the Council of State. But in an extensive introduction to the verdict, the judge formulates sharp criticism: “The options for recognized victims to be compensated and/or helped have become a maze of very lengthy procedures.” The question is justified, according to the judge, how much the recognized victims actually made progress with the Recovery Act and the Council of State's rulings.

The Amsterdam judge sees a danger in the attitude of politicians and the Supreme Administrative Court: “Let it not come to the point that in a few years there will be a second parliamentary survey on this subject, with once again devastating conclusions for the legislator, the Ministry of Finance and the judiciary.”

Also read:

“Unreasonable demand” for allowance parents remains. “This is a slap in the face”

Can you expect “allowance parents” who borrowed money from family or friends in their financial distress to be able to prove this with a notary deed? Yes, according to the Council of State.