How to ask the bank for a reduction of the mortgage if you can't pay the installment

The Code of Good Practices allows households that meet certain economic requirements to request a restructuring of their mortgage, with grace periods and extensions of term. If the solution is not sufficient, it contemplates a possible debt write-off and, as a last resort, the dation in payment.

EuropaPress 7027820 mujer saca dinero cajero automatico 15 octubre 2025 cerceda madrid espana

EuropaPress 7027820 mujer saca dinero cajero automatico 15 octubre 2025 cerceda madrid espana

Add DEMÓCRATA to Google

Ask FREN

Published

Last updated

7 minutes

Most read

Elecciones 29N · Encuestas

La media de las encuestas

Media a 25 de octubre de 2026 · 15 institutos

  • PP31,4 %
  • PSOE26,9 %
  • Vox18,8 %
  • Sumar6,4 %
  • Podemos3,1 %
  • ERC2,2 %
010203040ene 2024jul 2024ene 2025jul 2025ene 2026jul 2026

Media del último estudio de cada instituto en 30 días y su evolución semanal desde el 23J. Partidos con al menos un 2 %.

Todas las encuestas

Elecciones generales del 29 de noviembre · Demócrata

Not being able to face the mortgage payment does not necessarily mean having to wait to accumulate arrears or for the bank to initiate an execution. Households in a particularly vulnerable economic situation can apply for the Code of Good Practices for mortgage debtors without resources, as long as they meet the legally established requirements and their entity is adhered.

The mechanism is regulated in Royal Decree-Law 6/2012 and works in a staggered manner. The first option is to restructure the debt to reduce the monthly effort. If the new plan remains unviable, a write-off of the outstanding capital may come into play and, under more demanding conditions, the transfer of the property in payment.

Who can request a mortgage restructuring

The starting point is to be in what the regulation calls the “exclusion threshold”. To access the restructuring, several requirements must be met simultaneously.

First, the income of the household unit cannot exceed three times the annual IPREM of 14 payments. With the IPREM currently used as a reference, of 8,400 euros annually in 14 payments, the general limit amounts to 25,200 euros annually.

The threshold rises to 33,600 euros —four times the IPREM— when any member of the household unit has a disability greater than 33%, a situation of dependency, or an illness that permanently incapacitates them to work.

It can reach 42,000 euros —five times the IPREM— in certain cases of greater disability or serious illness provided for by the regulation, such as certain cases of cerebral palsy, mental illness, intellectual, physical, or sensory disability.

Additionally, as a general rule, the mortgage payment must exceed 50% of the net income of the household unit. That percentage drops to 40% in certain cases of disability, dependency, or illness contemplated by the regulation.

However, it is not enough to have low income and dedicate more than half to the mortgage. There must also have been an increase in the mortgage effort during the four years prior to the application or some of the family circumstances of special vulnerability provided for by law must have occurred.

Among these last ones are the large families, the single-parent units with dependent children, those in which there is a minor, certain cases of disability, dependency or serious illness, the family units in which there is a victim of gender violence, trafficking or sexual exploitation, and debtors over 60 years old.

The housing must also meet a limit

The other filter that can be decisive is the price at which the housing was purchased.

To access the restructuring or a possible write-off, the acquisition price cannot exceed by 20% the result of multiplying the constructed square meters by the average price per square meter of free housing corresponding to the year of purchase and the province. In any case, there is a maximum cap of 300,000 euros.

For the dation in payment, the requirement is stricter, eliminating that additional margin of 20% and the acquisition price cannot exceed, in any case, 250,000 euros.

What reduction can be achieved in the installment

The first measure does not consist of the bank directly forgiving a part of the debt. It consists of modifying the loan conditions to achieve a more manageable installment.

When the mortgage effort has multiplied at least by 1.5 compared to that of four years ago, or there is a family circumstance of special vulnerability, the restructuring includes a five-year capital repayment grace period. During that period, interest is paid, while the deferred capital is moved to the end of the loan, distributed among the subsequent installments or both options are combined.

The repayment term can also be extended to a maximum of 40 years from the granting of the loan. In variable mortgages, during the grace period, a rate of euribor minus 0.10 points is applied; in fixed-rate mortgages, the current fixed rate is maintained during that period.

If the mortgage effort has increased, but less than 1.5 times and there is no family circumstance of special vulnerability, the conditions are more limited and require two years of capital grace, an extension of the term of up to seven years, without exceeding 40 from the granting, and a reduction of the interest during the grace period calculated according to the rules established in the Code.

In either case, the eventual floor clauses cease to apply. Furthermore, the early repayment requested during the ten years following the approval of the plan does not incur compensation costs.

The bank has one month to present the plan

The debtor can submit their own proposal, but it is not mandatory. Once the application and all required documentation are submitted, the entity has one month to notify and offer a restructuring plan.

The Code can be requested even when a foreclosure procedure has already begun, as long as the auction has not yet been announced.

The restructuring includes all mortgage debt. This includes the overdue principal and, if applicable, late interest, default fees, expenses, and costs. Therefore, the bank cannot require the client to first bring overdue payments up to date as a condition to access the mechanism.

What happens if even the new payment is unaffordable

Once the restructuring is carried out, it must be checked how much the new payment represents in relation to family income.

If it is below 50% of the household income, the plan is considered viable. If it remains above 50%, it is considered unviable and the bank must inform the client of the following measures provided by the Code.

The first is to request a write-off of the outstanding principal, that is, to forgive part of the debt. Unlike restructuring, the entity is not obliged to grant it and may reject it.

The Code establishes different methods to calculate that possible reduction, including a 25% write-off, although it also considers other formulas linked to the amortized capital and the value of the property. The bank must communicate the result of the calculations to the debtor even if it ultimately decides not to grant the write-off.

The last option: hand over the property and cancel the debt

If the restructuring proves unviable and the write-off does not resolve the situation either, the Code provides for dation in payment.

Once all requirements are met, the debtor hands over the property and the entire mortgage debt and the personal liabilities linked to it are canceled. The request can be made within 24 months following the request for restructuring. There are also certain cases for those who already have a plan in place and later find that they cannot meet the payments.

The dation cannot be applied if the auction has already been announced or if there are subsequent charges on the property.

Furthermore, whoever requests the dation can ask to remain in the property as a tenant for two years, paying an annual rent equivalent to 3% of the total amount of the existing debt at the time of the dation.

What documents to bring to the bank

The application must be accompanied by the necessary documentation to demonstrate both the income and the composition of the family unit as well as the asset situation.

Among the documents that may be necessary are the income certificate from the last fiscal year and, where applicable, that of the Wealth Tax; the last three pay slips; certificates of unemployment benefits or subsidies; documents related to the minimum vital income, minimum rents or social aid; and, for certain self-employed individuals, the certificate of the benefit for cessation of activity.

The family book or proof of domestic partnership, certificate of registration, documentation on disability, dependency or incapacity when applicable, certificates from the Property Registry, the purchase deed and the mortgage deed must also be provided.

Finally, a responsible declaration regarding compliance with the requirements must be submitted. If the bank already has any of those documents, the client does not have to provide it again. They can also authorize the entity in writing to obtain certain information directly from the Tax Agency, Social Security, and the registries.

The bank can reject the application

If the requirements are not met, the bank may not accept the application. In that case, it must justify the denial and specify the calculations used to reach that conclusion.

There may also be grounds for a claim if the bank incorrectly considers that the client is not at the exclusion threshold, improperly applies the acquisition price limit, does not present the restructuring plan despite meeting the requirements, or proposes conditions different from those established by the Code.

The adherence of entities to the Code is voluntary, but once adhered, its application is mandatory for clients who prove that they meet the conditions. The list of adhering entities is officially published and was updated again in the BOE in July 2026.

How to claim if the bank says no

The first step is to file a formal complaint with the Customer Service or Customer Defender of the entity. It is advisable to keep a registered copy or any proof that allows demonstrating when it was filed.

If the mortgagor is a consumer and the entity rejects the complaint or does not respond within a month, they can forward it to the Bank of Spain, providing the prior complaint, the bank's response if there is one, and the documentation that supports their position.

The Bank of Spain expressly identifies as possible reasons for complaint that the entity does not justify the denial, does not detail the calculations used, does not offer restructuring when appropriate, or does not inform of the following measures provided by the Code.

The administrative route does not prevent, moreover, the affected party from going to the courts of justice.

More key points, information and questions with FREN

AI-GENERATED CONTENT

What is the parliamentary processing status of Royal Decree-Law 6/2012 and what legislative reforms have been proposed regarding the Code of Good Mortgage Practices?

The Royal Decree-Law 6/2012, of March 9, completed its parliamentary processing years ago and is fully in force, but it has been subject to several reforms that have expanded and reconfigured the attached Code of Good Mortgage Practices and have created new complementary codes.

1. Parliamentary processing status of Royal Decree-Law 6/2012

  • Royal Decree-Law 6/2012 was published in the BOE on March 10, 2012 (BOE-A-2012-3394), with entry into force the following day: text in BOE.
  • According to article 86 CE, it was submitted for ratification in the Congress. The Resolution of March 29, 2012 (BOE-A-2012-4918) orders the publication of the Ratification Agreement: ratification resolution.
  • That resolution indicates that the Plenary of the Congress, in session on March 29, 2012, agreed to ratify Royal Decree-Law 6/2012. There is no record that it was agreed to process it as a bill.
  • Therefore, the parliamentary processing has been concluded since 2012: the decree-law was ratified and not transformed into a bill. Since then, it operates as a law-level norm, subject to successive subsequent reforms.

2. Main legislative reforms of the 2012 Code of Good Practices

The Code of Good Practices for the restructuring of debts secured by mortgages on primary residences is included in the annex of Royal Decree-Law 6/2012. That annex and the decree-law itself have been modified several times, and additional codes have also been created. Based on the consolidated text of the BOE and related regulations, the key reforms are:

2.1. Initial expansions after the financial crisis
  • Law 1/2013, of May 14, on measures to strengthen protection for mortgage debtors, debt restructuring, and social rent:
    • Modifies Royal Decree-Law 6/2012 (cited in the BOE consolidation note) to reinforce protection for debtors within the exclusion threshold and better articulate the relationship between the Code of Good Practices and the suspension of evictions.
    • The modification of the Code appears in the consolidated text as a reform dated 05/15/2013.
  • Royal Decree-Law 1/2015, of February 27, on the second chance mechanism, and its subsequent Law 25/2015, of July 28:
    • Add and consolidate letter b).iv of section 1 of the annex (Code of Good Practices), expanding and refining the restructuring and debt forgiveness measures for vulnerable debtors.
    • These reforms appear in the consolidated text as 2015 modifications derived first from the decree-law and then from the law.
2.2. 2017 Reform: expansion of groups and rental rights
  • The Royal Decree-Law 5/2017, of March 17, and its ratification by Resolution of March 30, 2017 (BOE-A-2017-3819), deeply modify the regime:
    • They reform article 3.1.b) of Royal Decree-Law 6/2012, expanding the concept of “circumstances of special vulnerability” (families with minors, victims of gender-based violence, people over 60 years old, etc.).
    • They modify sections 4 and 5 of the annex (Code of Good Practices) to generalize the right to rent the adjudicated property to the executed debtor under certain conditions, with capped rents and possibilities for extensions.

    Text in BOE: Royal Decree-Law 5/2017 and ratification resolution.

2.3. Reforms from 2022 onwards: new codes and updates
Since 2022, in a context of sharp interest rate increases, a second block of reforms has been articulated focusing on vulnerability due to mortgage cost increases:
  • Royal Decree-Law 19/2022, of November 22:
    • Establishes a new Code of Good Practices to alleviate interest rate hikes on mortgages on primary residences, complementary to the 2012 code.
    • Again modifies Royal Decree-Law 6/2012 and its annex, expanding measures and adjusting eligibility and restructuring parameters (the consolidation note of the Code indicates that the latest major update came into force on 11/24/2022).

    Text: Royal Decree-Law 19/2022, ratified by Congress resolution.

  • Council of Ministers Agreement of November 22, 2022, published by Resolution of November 23, 2022:
    • Approves a specific Code of Good Practices for mortgage debtors at risk of vulnerability, distinct but coordinated with the 2012 and 19/2022 frameworks: Resolution 11/23/2022.
  • Resolution of December 27, 2023, from the State Secretariat for Economy and Business Support:
    • Publishes a new Council of Ministers Agreement that modifies the 2022 Code of Good Practices for vulnerable debtors, adjusting conditions and measures: Resolution 12/27/2023.
  • Additionally, other royal decree-laws under parliamentary processing, issued in 2023–2024, again modify provisions of Royal Decree-Law 19/2022 (for example, extending deadlines for suspension of mortgage commissions or extensions of measures), which indirectly affects the regime of Codes of Good Practices to which they refer.
2.4. Reforms under processing affecting the protection system
Finally, there are ongoing initiatives that, without rewriting the 2012 Code, affect its governance:
  • The Draft Law creating the Independent Administrative Authority for Financial Customer Defense (file 121/000018) foresees in its seventh final provision modifying Royal Decree-Law 6/2012 to adapt the Code's control commission to the existence of this new Authority, strengthening supervision of compliance with the Code by entities.

In summary, Royal Decree-Law 6/2012 is already closed in terms of parliamentary processing, but the Code of Good Mortgage Practices has been successively expanded and complemented by a set of laws and royal decree-laws from 2013 to at least 2023–2024, and it continues to be subject to adjustments through new regulations under processing.

Can you detail the current content of the Code of Good Mortgage Practices after the latest reforms? What differences exist between the 2012 Code and the new Code of Good Practices approved in 2022 for vulnerable mortgages? What role will the future Financial Customer Defense Authority have in supervising compliance with the Code of Good Practices?

What are the legal functions and competencies of banking entities adhering to the Code of Good Practices regarding the restructuring of mortgage debts?

The legal functions and competencies of banking entities adhering to the Code of Good Practices (CBP) regarding the restructuring of mortgage debts are mainly articulated in Royal Decree-Law 6/2012, on urgent measures to protect mortgage debtors without resources, and its amendments (Law 1/2013, Law 25/2015, RDL 5/2017, Law 5/2019, and RDL 19/2022, among others). This framework is complemented by the new 2022 code for mortgages affected by interest rate increases (RDL 19/2022 and Council of Ministers Agreement published by Resolution of November 23, 2022, BOE-A-2022-19535).

Nature of adhesion and scope of commitment
  • Adhesion to the CBP is voluntary for credit institutions and other lenders that professionally grant mortgage loans or credits on primary residences (art. 5 RDL 6/2012 and art. 4 RDL 19/2022).
  • However, once adhered, entities assume a legally enforceable commitment: from the moment the debtor proves they are within the “exclusion threshold” or applicable vulnerability case, the Code's measures become mandatory for the entity (art. 5.4 RDL 6/2012; arts. 3 and 4 RDL 19/2022).
  • Adhesion is communicated to the General Secretariat of the Treasury, which publishes and updates the list of adhered entities on the electronic headquarters and in the BOE; the commitment extends to the entire portfolio of affected contracts of the adhered entity.
Functions towards the vulnerable debtor: what they must and can do

The central function of adhered entities is to apply stepwise the relief mechanism designed by the Code for vulnerable mortgage debtors:

  • Mandatory viable restructuring: in a first phase, the entity must offer a restructuring of the mortgage loan on the primary residence that includes, according to the annex of RDL 6/2012, temporary grace periods on principal amortization, interest rate reductions for several years, and extension of the amortization term.
  • Optional debt forgiveness: if the restructuring is insufficient to make the resulting burden manageable, the Code foresees that the entity may, on a discretionary basis, offer a debt forgiveness on the total debt.
  • Mandatory payment in kind as last resort: when, after attempting restructuring, the debt remains unmanageable, the debtor can request and the entity is obliged to accept payment in kind as a definitive debt release, under the terms of the annex of RDL 6/2012. It also foresees the possibility for the family to remain in the property as tenants with reduced rent.
  • Moderation of default interest: in all contracts of debtors within the “exclusion threshold” covered by the CBP, default interest is limited to a reduced margin over the remunerative interest.
  • Treatment of guarantors and endorsers: guarantors, endorsers, and non-debtor mortgagors within the exclusion threshold can demand that the principal debtor's assets be exhausted first before being claimed, even if they waived the benefit of excussion.

In the 2022 CBP (RDL 19/2022 and Agreement of November 22, 2022), adhered entities assume additional relief functions against interest rate increases, such as:

  • Offering novations with term extensions (up to a fixed maximum number of years) and/or temporarily stabilized installments.
  • Facilitating, at the debtor's request, the conversion of variable-rate mortgages to fixed-rate, with clear, transparent, and comparable offers.
Obligations of information, transparency, and customer treatment
  • Adhered entities must inform their clients in a clear and prominent manner about their adhesion to the CBP and the possibility of availing themselves of it (art. 5.9 RDL 6/2012; Agreement of November 22, 2022, section 2).
  • Information must be provided:
    • Individually to clients who have missed any installment or express payment difficulties.
    • Through the entity's branch network and website.
  • They must collaborate in the documentary accreditation of the vulnerability situation, exempting the debtor from providing documentation already held by the entity and being able to obtain it, with client authorization, from the Tax Agency, Social Security, and Registries.
Relationship with the Administration: supervision, control, and claims
  • Entities must send monthly to the Bank of Spain the information required by the Control Commission of the Code: requested, executed, and denied operations; foreclosure procedures; mortgage debt management practices; and claims received (art. 7 RDL 6/2012).
  • Debtors can file claims before the Bank of Spain for alleged non-compliance with the CBP, which are processed like other supervised claims.
  • The Control Commission periodically evaluates the degree of compliance with the Code and submits proposals to the Government regarding mortgage debtor protection.
Margin of discretion and improvements
  • Within the mandatory minimum framework, adhered entities may apply the CBP to debtors not strictly included in the exclusion threshold and may improve the conditions provided in the Code itself (art. 5.8 RDL 6/2012).
  • The essential content of mandatory measures must always be respected when legal requirements concur; discretion is limited to voluntary improvements and decisions on debt forgiveness.
  • The entity also assumes certain notarial and registry costs of novations and cancellations linked to the application of the Code, reinforcing its role as a coadjuvant in protecting the vulnerable debtor.

What additional legal requirements must families meet to access payment in kind under other regional or European regulations?

In Spain, payment in kind is basically configured within the state framework (mainly Royal Decree-Law 6/2012 and its Code of Good Practices, reinforced by Law 1/2013 and Royal Decree-Law 19/2022). On top of this basic regime, regional regulations and the European context add rather complementary protection requirements and guarantees (definition of vulnerability, rehousing, social rent, mediation), rather than new automatic payment in kind cases.

1. Reminder of the basic state regime

The Code of Good Practices (RDL 6/2012, modified by RDL 19/2022) foresees that if restructuring and possible debt forgiveness fail, the debtor may request liberating payment in kind provided they are within the “exclusion threshold”. From the RDL 6/2012 text itself, among others, these additional requirements compared to an ordinary mortgage emerge:

  • Income limits: the joint income of the family unit cannot exceed a multiple of the IPREM (generally, 3 times IPREM; the RDL itself details the family unit calculation).
  • Critical economic situation: unemployment, sharp income drop, and mortgage overburden (the text refers to families unable to meet installments or basic needs).
  • Good faith and documentary accreditation: the debtor must provide registry certificates, purchase and mortgage deeds, and a responsible declaration that they meet exclusion requirements, which the entity can verify (articles of RDL 6/2012 cited in the recovered fragments).
  • Primary residence and property value limits (regulated in the annex of the Code of Good Practices, not fully reproduced in the extracts, but part of the basic regime).
2. Additional requirements in regional regulations

Autonomous communities cannot directly alter the civil configuration of payment in kind, but they have approved housing and consumer laws that add sectoral conditions and guarantees around foreclosures and payments in kind:

  • Catalonia:
    • Law 20/2014, which modifies the Catalan Consumer Code (Law 22/2010), incorporates in art. 123-10 the right of consumers, guarantors, and third-party mortgagors to enhanced information about loans/mortgages and explicitly mentions that these contracts “may provide for the option of payment in kind”. It requires detailed prior information by the notary about execution consequences, price fluctuations, etc., which in practice conditions that the family can validly accept or negotiate a payment in kind.
    • Law 24/2015 on housing emergency and energy poverty and Law 4/2016 on protection of the right to housing configure a strong block of protection against over-indebtedness and evictions: before acquiring properties from foreclosures or payments in kind, the acquirer must offer social rent if households are at “risk of residential exclusion” (with income, effort, and lack of housing alternative parameters defined in the law itself). These are not requirements to request payment in kind but additional conditions on how affected families must be treated.
  • Basque Country:
    • Law 3/2015 on housing recognizes a subjective right of access to housing and regulates specific responses for people who, in eviction procedures due to mortgage execution, may fall into social exclusion (excerpt from the recovered preamble). It foresees the provision of rental housing, subsidies, or even temporary expropriation of use. Again, it does not create an autonomous right to payment in kind but conditions the institutional response when a family requests solutions such as handing over the property.
  • Navarra:
    • Foral Law 10/2010 on the right to housing and its amendment by Foral Law 24/2013 regulate the protected housing stock. In a specific excerpt, it clarifies that if a protected dwelling is transferred by payment in kind to the creditor or in foreclosure, this does not alter its legal protection regime. That is, payment in kind is admitted as a transfer method, but the dwelling remains subject to VPO limits and controls.
  • Valencian Community:
    • Law 2/2017 on the social function of housing focuses mainly on measures against evictions and mobilization of empty housing; Title III refers to ensuring the right to decent housing in cases of evictions due to mortgage executions, even through expropriation of use and maintaining residence under certain conditions (vulnerability and income requirements that the law refers to regulatory development). These requirements add to the state ones for public intervention, not for the civil pact of payment in kind itself.
  • Andalusia:
    • Law 3/2016 on consumer mortgage loans strengthens protection in contracting (information, control of abusive clauses). It does not introduce a new automatic payment in kind case but requires greater transparency and control, conditioning the validity of payment in kind agreements with vulnerable consumers.
  • Madrid:
    • Law 1/2012 on transparency in mortgage contracting also focuses on pre-contractual information and clarity of clauses, without creating its own right to payment in kind but tightening form and comprehension requirements so that the debtor can assume or negotiate alternatives such as handing over the property.
3. What happens in other European regulations?

In the research conducted, no specific comparative report from the European Commission, ECB, or EBA detailing, country by country, legal requirements for payment in kind (non-recourse mortgages) for vulnerable families was found. The European sources located focus on:

  • Directive 2014/17/EU on mortgage credit and its transposition issues in some States, which set standards on information, solvency assessment, and portfolio sales, but do not impose a single payment in kind model.
  • Reports on affordable housing and housing overburden (such as the “Affordable Housing in the EU 2023” report from the Basque Housing Observatory, or interventions by the Bank of Spain), which note many European households spend more than 40% of income on housing, but without detailing payment in kind regimes.
  • Recent initiatives on consumer insolvency at the EU level (Council–Parliament agreement on common insolvency rules, cited by the Council of the EU), which highlight a great national diversity in recovery periods (between 0.6 and 7 years) and costs, without harmonizing property delivery as a total debt extinguishing mechanism.

With the available information, it can be stated with certainty that:

  • There is no harmonized European regime for payment in kind: each State decides whether it admits non-recourse mortgages, what role property delivery plays in insolvency procedures, and what income or over-indebtedness thresholds it requires to access total debt discharge.
  • Protection of vulnerable families is mainly articulated through:
    • Rules on responsible lending (Mortgage Directive).
    • Second chance/personal insolvency regimes, where it is usually required to prove over-indebtedness, good faith, payment effort, and in some countries, presence of minors or disabilities, but concrete details vary and have not been systematized in the consulted sources.

In summary: in Spain, the textbook payment in kind remains that of the state Code of Good Practices; autonomous communities add social requirements and guarantees (definition of exclusion risk, rehousing, social rent, use expropriation) and, at the European level, there is no single pattern but a diverse combination of non-recourse and recourse mortgages and second chance regimes with vulnerability requirements depending on each country.

Can you detail with concrete figures the “exclusion threshold” of Royal Decree-Law 6/2012 and how it conditions access to payment in kind? What practical differences exist between Catalan measures (Law 24/2015 and 4/2016) and those of Navarra or Basque Country for families in mortgage foreclosures? How is the Second Chance Law practically articulated in Spain when there is a mortgage on the primary residence and what is its relationship with payment in kind?

Play

Test your knowledge with FREN!

How much do you know about this topic? Answer the following 3 questions.

Which regulation governs the mechanism to request the restructuring of a mortgage in a situation of vulnerability?

Question 1 of 3

What is the general annual income limit for a family to access the mortgage restructuring mechanism?

Question 2 of 3

What final option does the Code of Good Practices consider if restructuring and debt reduction do not resolve the situation?

Question 3 of 3