The government of Isabel Díaz Ayuso opposes the granting of a new social rent to a person affected by the sale of social housing to Goldman Sachs, even if a first instance judgment protects the woman evicted by the American fund in 2016 and condemns the Community of Madrid to grant him a new public apartment.
However, the regional executive appealed the decision, saying “it is not obliged to resolve the housing situation” of the applicant and citing an earlier Supreme Court ruling. To support his argument, he assures that “in no case has it been validated by the judicial authorities that an eviction must be accompanied by an alternative to housing”. sine qua non condition“, as indicated in the appeal presented by the Community of Madrid and to which elDiario.es acceded.
In the same spirit, the Regional Lawyer maintains that “there is no fundamental right to housing in our country” and emphasizes that the Constitution enshrines this right as “a guiding principle of social and economic policy”. With this argument, the Community of Madrid defends that the contested sentence “blatantly ignores a well-known extreme in our legal system”.
Expelled in 2016
These are the reasons given by the Ayuso government to prevent Ángela (48 years old) and her family from accessing social housing again. In 2009, this woman, mother of a large family, obtained a social apartment in Valdecarros. At that time, the Community of Madrid granted it to him due to his “special need” and even granted him a 95% rent reduction. I paid a monthly rent of 50 euros.
When the executive of Ignacio González (PP) sold 3,000 social housing units to Goldman Sachs for 200 million euros, Ángela lost the social reduction on her rent. With the change of owner, he could no longer bear the new rent price. “I asked for help from social services, Caritas and I don’t know how many other things,” he remembers. No one explained to her the consequences that selling social housing would have for her and her family. He only received one letter, which he had difficulty interpreting. She began racking up unpaid bills and, after seeing other neighbors abandon their homes, she was evicted in 2016.
Two years after this launch, the Ministry of Justice canceled the operation by which the Madrid government got rid of these 3,000 social apartments. The Community of Madrid appealed this decision and, after several legal setbacks, the Ayuso team took charge of managing the recovery of the 1,700 homes still held by the fund.
With the sale already canceled, Angela again requested social rent. He contacted the Social Housing Agency, dependent on the Community of Madrid, but received no response. After the administrative silence, he went to court and there, a judge recognized his right.
The Community must respond to the “housing need”
“The Administration which recovered ownership of the housing transferred by a contract declared void must respond to the applicant’s need for housing which it itself created,” declared the judge. In a judgment rendered in September and put forward by this editorial staff, the judge also stressed that the Ayuso government had not “assessed the social and economic situation” of the applicant.
In its allegations, the Autonomous Executive considers that it is erroneous to assert that “the applicant’s need for housing was caused by the Community of Madrid”, since the expulsion took place “due to non-payment of the rent to the owner at the time. “”, Encasa Cibeles, a company created to manage the purchase of these apartments and 97% owned by Goldman Sachs. “In short and without delving into the discussion, the expulsion was not provoked by the Community of Madrid,” adds the legal team of the regional administration.
The General Legal Advisor of the Community of Madrid considers that the sentence “goes beyond jurisdictional functions”. “What is in no way appropriate is to replace the competent administrative authority and grant social housing without any formality,” insist the lawyers, who explain that the “solution” in this case would be to start the administrative procedure again and that it would be the Community of Madrid is the one that decides “whether the aforementioned legalization takes place or not”.
Finally, the regional legal team defends that “the cancellation of the sale does not produce feedback of effects”. In this way, the Regional Executive is trying to prevent the opening of a new front following the sale of 3,000 public housing units, because if this decision is ratified, other people affected who lost their housing after the change of owner could follow the same path as Angèle. The impact this decision could have is unknown, since the number of public apartment beneficiaries who were evicted or left when their tenancy lost social protection is unknown.
