In 2020, the government of Pedro Sánchez, composed at the time of the PSOE and Unidas Podemos, sought to address the economic and social crisis that threatened Spain due to the rapid expansion and contagiousness of the COVID-19. At a time when the world was completely at a standstill, the scenario was no different in our country, where it was decided to activate emergency measures to avoid fatal damage resulting from the slowdown of work and, by consequently, economic activity. One of them, key for the population, was the temporary suspension of evictions.
“So that no one is left behind, the government has regulated certain protections for groups who, due to their vulnerability, may be subject to eviction.” This is the phrase that the Executive used to block launches during the pandemic. That year, the figures relating to the execution of evictions saw a considerable drop. But this decline did not last long, despite the extension of the decree: in 2021, the number of evictions approached pre-pandemic levels. To the extension of this social shield intended for vulnerable groups still very affected by the effects of the COVID crisis, the Government added the Law relating to the right to housing in 2023.
This standard had among its main objectives to achieve where the social shield had failed: to protect these vulnerable sectors from possible evictions for non-payment. Currently, a few months before the end of 2024 – and therefore the validity of the anti-crisis decree – none of the measures indicated above have succeeded in preventing the first quarter of this year from the number of evictions increased up to 12.8%, while in the second it increased by 7.8%.
By region, Catalonia This is where the greatest number of evictions were carried out, both in absolute terms (2,091) and per 100,000 inhabitants (25.9). Next come the Region of Murcia and the Principality of Asturias with 23 launches carried out per 100,000 inhabitants. Far from these figures are Navarre where the rate does not exceed ten, nor those of the Basque Country and Extremadura.
“The new law protects, but for a time”
“Behind these figures are the lives of people protected by paper measures and little action,” denounces the deputy director of Hogar SÍ, Maribel Ramos, in conversation with laSexta. This is why he underlines the need for “real and effective measures” to address a problem that irritates a large part of society. The proof is massive protests like the one in Madrid were flooded and they plan to do it in other cities. Or the shock suffered by housing and universities ministersIsabel Rodríguez and Diana Morant, when they went to the Madrid neighborhood of Vallecas to sign a protocol aimed at facilitating young people’s access to housing with which, in the eyes of PAH Vallekas, they only intended to “fill their mouths” .
Many voices point out that these measures are nothing more than a “patch” that only serves to “extend the launch by up to four months”, says Navarrese lawyer Irene Otal in an interview with laSexta . “The new law protects, but for a time” in which, sometimes, the only result it achieves is to “increase the anguish” of people who expect to be evicted from their homes. This prolongation of the legal process affects all parties involved: the plaintiffs, the defendants and the system itself. The main change is that now “a series of conditions must be met” to be considered a vulnerable person and that a court can thus make the decision. In other words, “it’s not a law for everyone.”
Knowing that we are talking about economic and social vulnerability, Ramos de Hogar OUI assures that the first is “easy” to demonstrate since they are quantitative requirements, but the second less so because each person has “a contextual situation of its own.” An example is the type of locality of residence of the person concerned, because “it is not the same in a large city where the situation is not viable, compared to a smaller one where the availability of alternatives of accommodation is larger.
Utility billing
Throughout this process, it not only negatively affects the tenant. Simply preparing reports proving their vulnerability falls to already oversaturated social services, which are also directly responsible for finding alternative housing for people who find themselves homeless. SO, the inadequacy of the standard becomes more palpable. Social assistance “It is never a priority in budgets”deplores Otal. Saturation is therefore very high in these public services.
But beyond the lack of financial means, there are also difficulties in accessing tax information from these public services, which makes it difficult to truthfully verify the degree of vulnerability of a person. It’s basically a question “extremely complicated”. This is how the economist Ángel Martínez Jorge evaluates it, in statements to laSexta, who specifies: “There can be many false positives and many false negatives.” In this sense, he specifies that “it is not that the law is ambiguous, but that there are not sufficient means to access the necessary information”.
For Maribel Ramos, “it makes no sense that this problem is supported by public services”. He even criticizes the fact that these reports “alleviate a situation, but do not guarantee the right to housing”. According to him, “after the social services report, we must act” which, for the moment, only envisages prolong legal proceedings; “another delay in the process” pending the issuance of the vulnerability report by Social Services. This is what the Madrid law firm Emilio Rojas tells us, specializing in defending property owners in the event of non-payment. They claim that sometimes this document “does not even arrive on the hearing date.”
And the owners, what?
Criticism of this protection also comes from the owner. Are landlords affected by the way the government is trying to end this crisis? The economist Ángel Martínez assures laSexta that “It gives the impression that there is greater tolerance in the event of non-payment” to which more and more families are forced. With this in mind, he considers that “tenant unions are simplistic,” focusing only on the tenant’s share. Although he does not want to minimize the importance of this aspect, he emphasizes that “several thousand owners are affected” by this law, which generates in them a “feeling of frustration, insecurity and even helplessness”.
It is true that the rule provides compensation as compensation to those who were affected by non-payment. However, Martínez says it is still unclear to what extent this aid is being granted. He nevertheless predicts that these amounts “will not be very significant”. This is why, according to the economist, This feeling of “helplessness” and “fear” ends up being reflected in the real estate market, since the owners prefer to “get away from it”. Lawyer Emilio Rojas even assures laSexta that many of his clients prefer to keep their house as a second home or even sell it after eviction proceedings.
This individual owner is not the one who must offer an alternative
Ángel Martínez highlights another factor that would make this housing crisis even more stressful: as “there are more and more of us in fewer and fewer places where we want space to live”, in reference to big cities, the housing supply could be even lower. In this regard, he details that this reduction leads to “higher prices, greater competition and tenant diversification.” And this fully affects people in vulnerable situations: for example, the economist warns that some owners already avoid renting to families with children because this constitutes a criterion for achieving this vulnerability. With this logic, he concludes that the same law that seeks to protect them “excludes them from the market.”
An additional responsibility for the owner that Ramos also sees, who insists that this law makes no sense if there is no housing alternative for those who cannot pay. In fact, he assures: “This individual owner is not the one who must offer an alternative”. It is for this reason that he considers “that it is important to start taking preventive measures, because housing has become one of the factors that most mark inequalities in Spain” and in the face of this “the pillars fundamentals are missing. And Otal also positions itself in the same direction: without a clear commitment to a public park, the standard is nothing other than “a short-term patch” for “causes that will continue to exist.”
