A contractor who is unpaid cannot simply close off a construction site. A right of retention requires a specific legal basis and actual control over the works concerned. The owner, mortgage lender and others involved may also have their own legal positions. Record the situation and the claim immediately. If exclusion, handover or transfer is imminent, a construction lawyer can assess appropriate access arrangements, security or urgent measures.
Sources (2)
On this page
1. Start with the claim asserted by the contractor
Request an itemised overview of the invoices for which the contractor is retaining the works. Record the contracting parties, due dates, payments and disputed items. An outstanding balance is a starting point for investigation, not independent proof of a right of retention. An instalment may, for example, depend on a construction stage not yet reached, while payment for other work is already due.
Compare the claim with the contract and correspondence about defects, set-off or suspension of performance. The connection between the claim and the property needs separate assessment. An invoice from another project does not make a right over this site self-evident. Also investigate whether contractual provisions limit the powers available. Show in your file which amount you acknowledge and why you dispute the rest; merely writing that everything is defective is of little assistance.
2. Actual control requires more than a sign on the fence
For immovable property, much depends on the actual situation when retention is invoked. Who holds the keys, determines access and uses the site? A contractor bringing tools to an occupied home each day starts from a different position from one managing an enclosed new-build site. The absence of handover alone does not answer this question.
Preserve photographs, access lists, key arrangements and site reports from before and after the restriction. Courts assess actual control using specific circumstances. The case law examined shows that the ability to determine access is relevant. A statement that retention is being exercised does not replace that assessment. Changing locks or erecting fences afterwards likewise does not automatically create a lawful position. Have a lawyer reconstruct the existing control arrangements first.
3. Identify precisely which area is being retained
A dispute about one element may affect a larger plot, but the extent of the restriction needs investigation. Mark on a plan which rooms, homes, access roads and storage areas have actually been closed off. Show where other contractors work and who previously had access. A subcontractor working on one installation does not thereby automatically control the whole building.
Also record arrangements for safety and limiting damage. Consider a leak requiring repair, a structural inspection or emergency-service access. Discuss temporary access arrangements in writing, with clear agreements about supervision and preservation of each party’s position. Removing a fence yourself may escalate the dispute and prompt a damages claim. The access question may be urgent enough to require an interim decision.
4. The owner and lender have separate rights
The party obliged to pay the contractor need not own the building. In subcontracting, the claim may lie against the main contractor while the client owns the property. A bank may also hold a mortgage. Whether retention can be asserted against such third parties depends, among other matters, on their rights and the conditions under which the contractor acquired the claim. Do not treat these people as a single joint debtor.
Prepare a timeline covering the appointment, execution, acquisition of rights and exercise of actual control. Collect information about who was authorised to commission work concerning the property. Case law makes clear that invoking retention against a third party raises additional questions. The owner’s lack of a direct contract does not categorically exclude retention; equally, it does not mean the owner must always pay to regain the building.
5. Assess the pressure and its consequences together
Closing off works can quickly have major consequences: other trades cannot proceed, a planned transfer may fall through or materials may deteriorate. Document these consequences specifically through schedules, messages and supported cost estimates. The relationship between the claim, restriction and interests involved requires assessment. A small outstanding balance does not automatically invalidate retention, but neither is every form of pressure automatically justified.
Ask which less intrusive solution is available. Payment of an undisputed portion, a bank guarantee or a deposit sometimes creates an opening. Record who provides the security, which claim it covers and the conditions for release. Offering security does not settle the dispute by itself. Have its legal effect on continued restriction assessed, and prevent a practical arrangement from unintentionally being read as an acknowledgment of debt.
6. Fictional scenario: subcontractor closes off a home
Suppose an installer is unpaid by the main contractor and blocks access to an almost completed home. The owner has paid their instalments. Several businesses worked in the home and the owner held a key for viewings. This invented example shows why the invoice, the main contractor’s authority and actual access must be examined together.
The owner gathers the key arrangements and asks in writing which claim supports the restriction. The installer retains their appointment and evidence of managing the workplace. A lawyer can then assess the position against the owner and discuss arrangements for necessary work. The main contractor’s non-payment alone provides no ready-made answer concerning the entire building. Nor does the owner’s full payment to their own contractor decide the question independently.
7. Prepare a file for a focused urgent assessment
Provide the contract, terms, invoices, payment records, site photographs and timeline as a coherent package. Add the names and roles of the owner, lender, main contractor and subcontractors. Describe the result needed: investigative access, complete release, security or payment. Report existing procedural documents and all announced actions immediately. This enables the lawyer to assess urgency, legal basis and the competent forum first.
Also request a workable proposal for the period before a decision. Who protects the works, pays for security and prevents weather damage? Which inspection must proceed? A later legal victory does not automatically restore lost evidence or damaged materials. Keep original files and confirm temporary arrangements. A settlement should also identify outstanding payment and liability questions and when the access restriction actually ends.
Frequently asked questions
May a contractor close off my home for any unpaid invoice?
No. Examine, among other matters, the due claim, its connection with the property, actual control and third-party rights. An invoice alone is insufficient.
Can I change the lock myself to get inside?
That may harm your position and the evidence. Document the restriction and have access arrangements or urgent measures assessed before acting unilaterally.
Must I pay the main contractor’s debt as the owner?
That does not automatically follow from a claimed right of retention. Your ownership, the appointment and whether the asserted right can be invoked against you require separate investigation.
Sources
These sources relate to this page. For a specific case, check current rules and your own documents.
- Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden — ECLI:NL:GHARL:2013:BZ0824 Accessed: 2026-10-23
- Rechtbank Utrecht — ECLI:NL:RBUTR:2011:BP3905 Accessed: 2026-10-23
Legal review
Not legally reviewed yetThis version has not been reviewed by a lawyer or legal professional. Checking sources or editing text is not legal approval.
Editorial team Construction law in the Netherlands
We connect explanations to sources and record targeted changes. Legal review is attributed only to the actual reviewed version, with a real reviewer, date and scope. Human legal review of these articles remains open.
Ricardo van der Spoel
Editorial responsibility · Editorial organisation and technology