P1:
Yes, I can try to show you.
Well, so we're just...
I thought it...
It is quite a complex matter that you dive into.
And we turned a few circles around each other.
One, I think, was... for whom... do we make it contestable.
In this case...
The government official.
Someone at Airbnb.
Or someone who rents out a house through Airbnb.
Or someone who is a nuisance in a house.
Or someone who does nothing at all and rents a house through Airbnb.
In the end, we came up with who did we consider to be the most vulnerable?
Joke.
That's a very long story.
In any case, Joke is the one who rents it out.
In this case we have given some elements to her.
Single.
She can go on vacation only because.
I think that's what we decided.
Because she rents this out for a while.
So she's not super rich.
In this case, she had also just actually been very stupid, but simply forgot her registration number.
So it's kind of an innocent case, a case of fraud.
Okay, now comes step two.
The journey.
Let's have a look.
I think there were different cases.
One she does register with Airbnb.
Let's see what we're going to do there.

P5:
Shall I add something?

R1:
Help that poor boy out.

P5:
Below it is stated that when she offers her home to Airbnb, information from the municipality is already available or at least a link to it.
Hey, it looks like you rent out a house in Amsterdam.
Additional laws and regulations apply there.
Here you have the information.
On the one hand, information that you must comply with.
So as not to get caught, so to speak.
On the other hand information about the controlling system.
And how that works.
Then she eventually ends up on that list from the system.
That's not very well drawn.
But she will then receive an active alert.
So instead of someone coming to the door first, that system poops out the list and she just gets an alert right away.
Hey, you got on that list.
Here are the steps that made it so.
She will then receive instructions to fix it.
So, for example, because of the registration number on Airbnb, or whatever.
And she also receives an invitation to the open desk where she can discuss more information with an employee.
And who immediately has all the information available to adjust that too and reverse her decision or...
Yes like that.
Doesn't that work?
So she doesn't respond at all?
Or she cannot demonstrate that this is therefore unjustified?
Then an enforcer comes.
That gets her on the list.
They can also see why that address is on the list.
And base his or her choice on whether or not to visit that address or not or sooner or later.
Then there is a house check, or not.
The checklist of the inspection is filled in on the spot.
And on that you could immediately indicate as a resident whether you agree with that or as an owner whether you agree with it or not.
If you do not agree with this, the objection procedure can be actively started.
So that that is not an act of the owner himself.
Go to the counter, but that there are active invitations for that.
And then there will be a whole objection procedure, things that we have not worked out, that is the cloud.
And then ultimately, if the decision is revised, there must be very clear feedback.
We've handled your case.
This is now my...
The "Rijdende Rechter" says this is my judgment, you will have to make do with that.
But also what that means for the future.
So we've changed it and that's why you're no longer on the list.
Or you don't get a fine now but you're still on that risk list until you...
So really... total...

P1:
Yes and I think there was some discussion.
At the same time, ideas ran through the conversation about how easily contestable something was.
So an idea is you can just say, hey, by the way, I don't belong in that box at all.
That could be very easy.
You're out of the box until it's re-evaluated in a few months.
Not everyone thought so easily about that.
Or some named it a bit easier, others didn't.
But yes, that's right, I think we wanted all the decisions that were made... whether you got into such a box at all... back as quickly as possible... as easily as possible to the person involved.
Who might want to fight it.
I think we also said that it can be quite unclear those points that the algorithm came up with, we were talking about a zip code for example.
What do you want to fight then?
I am not or I am in that zip code, zip code is not a smart feature to take with you at all.
What are you talking about.
Enough discussion too, I think, there was.
Are there other additions?

P2:
Yes, one last thing is that there must be enough time between the steps.
So also to be able to adjust, if you also want to change something, or to provide feedback.
She shouldn't have to do that within a week.
Because she's on vacation.
That would be very silly if she only has a week.
So there must be enough time before that enforcer really comes.
We've talked about that too.
That every step must be a...
How much time, we have not talked about.
But...
I think so.