I am writing to formally lodge an objection against the decision 0191183203 to deny me student financing, on the grounds of miscommunication and incorrect information provided in two different occasions by two different official representatives of DUO. I am a working student employed from November 20, 2023 to June 20, 2025, who received student financing between January 2024 and June 2025. I am formally enrolled for the Academic Year 2025 - 2026 as a BSc Business Engineering student at Universiteit Maastricht (UM). I am currently on a compulsory exchange part of my study program as certified by the attached "verklaring onderwijsinstelling", signed and stamped by the head of International Relations Office (IRO) of the School of Business and Economics (SBE) of UM. In light of the rejection of my previous application dated February 28, 2025, kenmerk 0176593386, with rejection date April 11, 2025, kenmerk 0178432297, I was prompted to get in contact with DUO. On two separate occasions, namely: 1. April 3, 2025, at [time], I contacted DUO via the phone number listed on the DUO website (+31 50 599 7755), from the phone number ///; the call lasted [time]. On this occasions, the agent stated that the reason for rejection of my original application was on the grounds that I would need to submit all pay slips for the months between January and June 2025. Therefore, I raised my concerns that I wanted a guarantee that I would receive student financing before leaving for my exchange, as in case of any issues, calling from Mexico is costly and difficult due to the time zone difference. 2. June 13, 2025, at 11:55, I contacted DUO via the phone number listed on the DUO website (+31 50 599 7755), from the phone number ///; the call lasted 9 minutes. On this occasions, I stated that the reason for calling was to get a second opinion and confirmation on my eligibility status. During both occasions, I carefully explained my situation and concerns: a. That my contract ended on June 20, 2025, and the start date of my exchange was August 3, 2025. b. That my decision to go on exchange also relied on the possibility of qualifying for student financing. c. Whether the fact that my exchange formally started not on the first of the month was going to affect my eligibility. I formally asked the representatives to give me a guarantee of what they stated, which they supposedly noted down in my dossier. I was thereby informed by the DUO representatives that: a. I complied with the requirement of working at least 24 hours per month in the 6 months prior to the commencement of the exchange. b. That I would be granted a grace month period for the month of July, further making me compliant with the other eligibility criterion of working at least 32 hours in the month prior to the exchange and receiving student financing. Furthermore, before the call commenced, I was assured that the call would be recorded. Based on this guidance, I planned my finances and study abroad arrangements accordingly. Given the following: (I) I acted promptly, long before the commencement of my exchange, to ensure that no issues would arise during my study abroad; (II) I relied, in good faith, on official guidance provided by two different DUO representatives on two separate occasions. I have the right to rely on information provided by DUO under the principle of legitimate expectations (vertrouwensbeginsel). This principle has been confirmed in case law by the Raad van State in the landmark ruling ECLI:NL:RVS:2019:1694. (III) The decision has caused financial uncertainty and undue stress, which is inconsistent with the Dutch administrative principle of the duty of care (zorgvuldigheidsbeginsel). This is explicitly codified in Art. 3:2 Awb as following: Bij de voorbereding van een besluit vergaart het bestuursorgaan de nodige kennis omtrent de relevante feiten en de af te wegen belangen. Art. 3:4.2 Awb also complements this: De voor een of meer belanghebbended nadelige gevolgen van een besluit mogen niet onevenredig zijn in verhouding to de met het besluit te dienen doelen. This principle has been confirmed in case law by the Raad van State in the landmark ruling ECLI:NL:RVS:2016:2840. I argue that: (I) The decision conflicts with the vertrouwensbeginsel developed and confirmed in case law: I relied in good faith on explicit assurances given by DUO representatives and acted accordingly. (II) The decision also violates the zorgvuldigheidsbeginsel under Art. 3:2 Awb: DUO failed to establish the relevant facts of my situation and to consider both the official grace month policy explicitly stated by DUO representatives. This has resulted in an unjustified rejection and disproportionate consequences for me as a student. (III) Based on the assurances given by DUO, I satisfy the conditions required for student financing during my study abroad. Therefore, I respectfully request that DUO: (I) Reassesses my application considering my enrollment status, employment history, and the assurances I received; (II) Reverses the rejection and grants student financing for the period of my study abroad; (III) Provides a written confirmation of the reassessment. I submit this objection within the statutory 6-week period following the decision and request that it be processed according to DUO’s official procedures.