My tenant wants to install a jacuzzi on the balcony: how I handled this request
Francois, a landlord in Mons, shares the unusual request from his tenant who wanted to place a jacuzzi on the balcony. Weight, co-ownership, water and a reasoned refusal.
- 01 The request
- 02 The checks
- 03 The reasoned refusal
- 04 The alternative
- 05 Lessons learned
May 2025 — the request
I own a 2-bedroom apartment on the 3rd floor of a 1990s residence in Mons, Grand Large neighbourhood. My tenant, Romain, 36, a sales representative, has been living there for a year on a lease of 3-6-9. Rent: 750 EUR excluding charges. A serious tenant, rent always on time.
On 5 May, Romain sent me an enthusiastic email: he found a promotional inflatable jacuzzi at 899 EUR and wants to install it on the 6 m2 balcony. “It doesn’t touch anything, it’s inflatable, I connect it to the kitchen water supply with a hose and drain into the gutter.”
My first reaction: a smile. My second reaction: panic. An inflatable jacuzzi for 4 people, filled with water — how much does that actually weigh?
The technical checks
Before responding, I did my homework. Three checks in parallel:
1. Weight. The model he had in mind: a Bestway Lay-Z-Spa Hawaii. Empty: 45 kg. Filled (795 litres of water): 840 kg. With 2 people: approximately 1,000 kg on 2.5 m2, or 400 kg/m2. My building’s balcony, built in 1993, is designed for 350 kg/m2 according to the architect’s plans provided by the building manager. We exceed the limit.
2. Co-ownership. I consulted the co-ownership regulations. Article 14: “It is prohibited to place on balconies, terraces and loggias any object or installation likely to alter the facade’s appearance or compromise the structure’s integrity.” A jacuzzi ticks both boxes.
3. Water. Connecting a hose to the kitchen water supply to fill an 800-litre jacuzzi: flow rate of approximately 10 litres/minute, i.e. 80 minutes of filling. Draining into the gutter: the chlorinated water discharged into the rainwater system poses an environmental and potentially legal issue.
A balcony that gives way under weight is a fatal accident. This is not a question of comfort or aesthetics: it is a question of personal safety. As a landlord, you can be held liable if you authorised the installation.
The reasoned refusal
On 12 May, I sent Romain a registered letter. Courteous but firm tone. I justified the refusal on 3 grounds:
- Structural safety: jacuzzi load (400 kg/m2) exceeding the balcony’s capacity (350 kg/m2), with the architect’s report attached
- Co-ownership regulations: Article 14 prohibits heavy installations on balconies
- Drainage issue: discharge of chlorinated water into the rainwater network is non-compliant
I specified that this refusal was not a matter of ill will but of legal responsibility. In the event of an accident (balcony collapse, water damage to the downstairs neighbour), my liability as landlord would be engaged, as would Romain’s as the installer.
The alternative
Romain was disappointed but understood. He asked if he could at least install a small inflatable children’s pool on the balcony. I checked: a 200-litre model, approximately 220 kg with one person, on 1.5 m2 — 147 kg/m2. Well within the standard.
I gave my written consent for the small pool, with 3 conditions:
- Drainage into the wastewater system (not the rainwater system)
- Protective mat under the pool to prevent infiltration
- Removal in winter to prevent frost damage
Romain was happy with the compromise. The landlord-tenant relationship remained intact. The exchange lasted 3 weeks from the initial request to the final agreement. To keep a record of this agreement, I added it as an addendum to the online lease.
What I learned
This anecdote may seem light-hearted, but it illustrates important principles of rental management:
-
Take every request seriously. Even the most incongruous. A tenant who asks permission is a tenant acting in good faith. Treat their request with respect and professionalism.
-
Always give reasons for your refusals. “No” is not enough. A reasoned refusal (safety, co-ownership, law) is uncontestable. A blunt refusal can be seen as abusive and give rise to proceedings before the justice of the peace.
-
Offer an alternative. The small pool compromise turned a refusal into a solution. Romain remained a satisfied and loyal tenant. The relationship matters as much as the law.
For other unusual landlord-tenant situations: My tenant is damaging the property, My tenant refuses viewings for re-letting and My landlord wants to increase charges retroactively.
- “**Always respond in writing to a tenant's works request.** Even for an absurd request, a written and reasoned refusal protects both parties. A verbal refusal can be contested.
- “**Consult the co-ownership regulations before responding.** Even if you agree as a landlord, the building manager and general assembly may prohibit the modification. Check first.
- “**Offer an alternative when you refuse.** A blunt refusal generates frustration. Proposing a replacement solution (garden furniture, parasol, plant tub) maintains the relationship.
Frequently asked questions
-
No. Any modification of the rented property that goes beyond a simple reversible arrangement requires the landlord's written consent. Installing a jacuzzi involves water connections, significant structural loading and potentially an alteration to the building's appearance. Without written consent, the landlord can require removal at the tenant's expense.
-
Belgian standards (NBN B 03-103) provide for an operational load of 250 to 400 kg/m2 for a residential balcony, depending on the year of construction and type of structure. A jacuzzi filled with water and 2 people can weigh 800 to 1,200 kg, concentrated on a surface of 2 to 3 m2. The risk of collapse is real.
-
Yes. Most co-ownership regulations prohibit heavy installations on private areas that affect common parts (structure, pipes, facade appearance). The general assembly can vote for a specific prohibition. The building manager can order removal.
-
Yes, the tenant can bring the matter before the justice of the peace if they consider the refusal abusive. But for an installation that presents a proven structural risk, the judge will rule in the landlord's favour. Modifications endangering the building's safety can always be refused.
Manage all your leases in one tool
Lease generation, MyRent registration, payment tracking, digital inventory. 14-day free trial, no card required.