The 4.4% CBS Rent Increase Is a Misleading Average — Rotterdam Internationals Are Paying Double That

When CBS published the September 2026 housing report showing a 4.4% average rent increase across the Netherlands, it triggered a collective sigh of relief. The narrative was that rent inflation was finally cooling — the lowest increase in three years. But that number is doing a lot of heavy lifting, and most of it is misleading.

The 4.4% figure blends two very different realities. For sitting tenants — people who stayed in the same apartment — the average increase was 3.8%. But for new tenants, the picture shifts dramatically. CBS itself acknowledges that tenant transitions add about 0.6 percentage points to the national average. That sounds small until you realise what it actually means: landlords are legally free to reset rents to market rates when a property changes hands, and those market rates are not what the cap suggests.

The cap — 4.4% for the private sector, 4.1% for social housing, 6.1% for the mid-market segment — only applies to existing contracts. The moment a tenant moves out, the landlord can name their price for the next one. And in a city like Rotterdam, where demand is intense and turnover is high, that price is not going up by 4.4%.

Among the four major Dutch cities, Rotterdam recorded the highest average rent increase: 4.7%, with 0.7 percentage points attributable to tenant turnover alone. Amsterdam sat at 4.3%, The Hague at 4.4%, and Utrecht at 4.5%. Rotterdam is the outlier.

But even 4.7% understates what's happening to international renters specifically. Market data from rental platforms shows that asking rents for new tenancies in Rotterdam rose 10.4% year-on-year in 2026 — the highest among major Dutch cities. That's not 4.4%. That's not 4.7%. That's more than double the headline figure.

Rotterdam has the largest student population in the Netherlands and serves as a major international business hub. The combination creates fierce competition for rental housing. Internationals arrive on temporary contracts, need housing fast, and often don't have the Dutch language skills or local knowledge to negotiate effectively. Landlords know this. They target internationals because they're willing to pay premium prices for convenience and flexibility — and because they're less likely to challenge the rent through formal channels.

Here's where the system fails internationals completely. The Huurcommissie — the Dutch Rent Tribunal — can challenge unlawful rent increases, but only for contracts that fall within the regulated sector. That means contracts below the liberaliseringsgrens, where the points-based system caps rent based on the property's quality and size.

Most internationals in Rotterdam are not in the regulated sector. They're renting above the liberaliseringsgrens in the free-market segment, where there's no points-based ceiling and the only protection is the annual cap for sitting tenants. When they move in, the landlord sets the rent at whatever the market will bear. When they move out, the next tenant faces an even higher number.

The Huurcommissie has no jurisdiction over market-rate rent setting for new tenancies in the liberalised sector. So when an international renter in Rotterdam sees their new lease come in 10% higher than the previous tenant's, there's no tribunal to appeal to. The system that's supposed to protect tenants simply doesn't reach them.

The CBS average doesn't just smooth over the difference between sitting tenants and new tenants. It also fails to capture who the new tenants actually are. Internationals are more mobile, more likely to be on temporary contracts, and structurally excluded from social and mid-market housing due to income thresholds, residency requirements, and waiting lists that stretch into years.

This means internationals are funneled into the private liberalised sector by default. They're not spread evenly across the rental market — they're concentrated in the segment where rent increases are highest and regulation is weakest. But the CBS methodology doesn't disaggregate by tenant type, contract status, or nationality. The 4.4% average treats a Dutch family in a regulated social housing unit in Groningen and a newly-arrived expat signing a free-market lease in Rotterdam as if they're experiencing the same market.

They're not. Not even close.

The annual rent cap does one thing well: it protects sitting tenants from excessive increases mid-contract. If you're already in a place and your landlord sends a rent increase letter, that letter must comply with the legal maximum. We've written about this before — those May and June letters aren't automatically valid, and you have the right to challenge them.

But the cap does nothing for you at the moment of signing a new lease. That's the gap internationals fall through. And the Huurcommissie can't bridge it because the liberalised sector operates outside its jurisdiction.

What actually helps is information. Knowing what comparable properties in your neighbourhood are listed for on Funda and Pararius before you sign. Understanding whether your contract falls under the regulated or liberalised sector. Checking the points value of your property if you suspect it might be misclassified. And moving fast — because in Rotterdam's market, the units that sit below the liberaliseringsgrens get taken within hours of appearing online.

At House Hunter, we watch rental platforms continuously and notify renters the moment a matching listing appears. That speed matters most in cities like Rotterdam, where the difference between a regulated rent and a free-market rent can be hundreds of euros per month. But no tool can fix the structural problem: the cap protects continuity, not access. And internationals, by definition, are trying to access the market — not stay in it.