The most everyday and concrete situations serve to gauge the effectiveness or scope of public policies. The eviction of Maricarmen by the investment fund Urbagestión brought this drama back to the forefront of public debate.
And it highlighted the lack of legal instruments to address these processes, even in the most extreme situations.
Maricarmen, a resident of Sainz de Baranda street in Madrid, is 87 years old and has a 50% disability. Her eviction is due to the demand of the investment fund that owns the property to more than triple the rent she was paying, even above the pension she receives. A textbook case of vulnerability.
And yet, it is not clear that the clause the Government wants to approve would have prevented the eviction.
What is the Government preparing?
The Ministry of Housing has been working since June on a decree-law with a broad package of measures to address the housing crisis. Among them, a new anti-eviction clause.
Despite promising its approval in July, the department led by Isabel Rodríguez decided to postpone it to September. And, now that we have reached this month, they are not sure it will be approved. Or at least when.
Housing is reluctant to approve a regulation without sufficient support. And, right now, neither Junts nor Podemos guarantee it. Sumar, on the other hand, urges immediate approval.
They tried to approve the regulation this Tuesday, to be in time for the eviction scheduled for this Wednesday, and now they demand it be in the next Council of Ministers –along with the tax relief package due to the consequences of the war in Iran--. Whether it has the support or not. That the groups show their positions in Congress.
What does the anti-eviction clause say?
The draft of the decree-law that Housing is preparing, which DEMÓCRATA has accessed, includes a permanent suspension of all evictions in situations of vulnerability and without housing alternatives.
The reform surpasses all previous moratoriums, as it is not conditioned to a time period. It would be permanent. But, in addition, it does not subordinate all its effectiveness to the decision of a judge.
Until now, the approved moratoriums did not guarantee the suspension of the eviction, even if the required vulnerability criteria were met. The halt was a possibility granted to the judge, once these circumstances were accredited.
The reform, in the terms proposed by Housing, establishes the suspension of all evictions when the defendant is vulnerable, has no housing alternative, and the Administration has not offered one.
When these circumstances arise, the court would be obliged to require the administrations for the available resources and, if they do not respond or lack them, the process would be suspended until "guaranteeing a reasonable housing alternative".
Housing also contemplates a transitional provision so that ongoing processes can be covered by this clause if the required conditions are met.
Housing believes that Junts could 'buy' the measure
Sources from the Ministry of Housing assure DEMÓCRATA that the reform has been worked on with the United Nations delegated commission and seeks to provide a permanent solution to evictions in the most extreme cases.
Furthermore, they believe that this clause could find support from Junts, a party more reluctant to recover the moratorium –it has repealed it along with PP and Vox several times this legislature--, as it addresses several of their concerns.
It anticipates that the regional administration will assume the necessary expenses that are agreed to compensate the plaintiff –unless this is a company or a large holder--, including unpaid rent, damages caused, or the cost of unpaid supplies.
And the suspension would not take place if the court considers that an economic or housing vulnerability situation of the plaintiff prevails.
And what about Maricarmen's case?
Without being categorical, everything indicates that the clause would not have prevented her eviction. Or, at least, considering one of the most basic conditions: the absence of an alternative.
The paralysis of the process only operates when this alternative does not exist, which in her case was communicated by both the Community of Madrid and the social services of the City Council. In her case, a place in a residence.
If validated as an alternative, it could not have been avoided even with the prohibition that the Government promotes in force.
The only doubt in this regard is whether the judge would consider the options provided by the administrations as a "reasonable housing alternative".
If deemed valid, the eviction would have been executed anyway, as it would be left to the judge's decision to execute the Urbagestión demand and the fund's willingness to carry it out.