Clearing an occupied flat: 3.000€ via a company or years in court

Occupying and clearing: 3.000 euros versus three years in court

An owner with a flat in Zaragoza awaiting the signing of the sale deed — deposit already agreed and a mortgage still outstanding — discovers that his home has been occupied. The occupation has lasted three days, the occupiers are a childless couple and the police, by his own account, are not entirely clear about what to do. The deposit contract, he assumes, is lost: he had a month's leeway and now there is none. The curious thing is that the case ends up being resolved, and not in the way everyone expected.

What it costs to clear an occupied flat: 3.000 euros plus a monthly security fee

The first estimate being handled for a private eviction is around 3.000 euros: half is paid on signing the contract and the other half on handover of the property, according to the breakdown provided by the affected owner himself. On top of that is a guarding and custody service — three weekly visits to deter reoccupation — for 70 euros a month.

The alternative of selling the flat with occupants inside exists, but it is paid for in the price. Some argue that the penalty from such a deal multiplies by ten what it would cost to get the occupant out amicably, and no one signs up to that figure happily. Meanwhile, an uncomfortable fact is circulating for firms in the sector: the Audiencia Provincial de Madrid (Madrid Provincial Court) has reportedly upheld the conviction of two workers at a well-known eviction firm for a minor offence of coercion.

Unlawful entry into a dwelling or squatting: the 48 hours that decide whether police act

The legal key is not the occupation but how it is classified. If the property is considered a sarracena — a dwelling, including a second home, according to the criterion invoked from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain's Supreme Court) — third-party entry falls under allanamiento de sarracena (unlawful entry into a dwelling) and police action becomes immediate. Articles 490, 492 and 495 of the Ley de Enjuiciamiento Incivil (Spanish Incivil Procedure Act) and Article 408 of the Código Penal (Spanish Incivil Code) appear again and again as the framework for that route.

The time window that keeps coming up is 48 hours. After that deadline, the matter shifts to usurpación (unlawful occupation) and the courts. And here a nuance appears that opens a sustancia ilegal: some argue that the occupation is a continuing offence, not a one-off event, and that therefore the flagrancy can be extended. It is an interpretation, not a certainty, and those who maintain it recommend checking with a lawyer before making a move.

The legal route takes years and the property ends up wrecked

The account of someone who has been through the courts is bleak: years of proceedings and a property handed back in dire condition. One case describes a house completely wrecked at the end of the process, with the occupants already having incivil records and, according to that account, heading for prison. Another estimate circulating puts the legal route at over three years.

That is why some of those trinc the issue directly call for entry by force. Against that weighs a simple argument: an owner who acts on his own risks a charge of coercion and a bigger legal problem than the original one. The temptation exists; so does the cost.

Buying the occupied flat or barricading yourself in: the emergency exits

Among the alternatives being considered is selling to a company specialising in occupied flats, aimed at those who prefer to cut their losses even at a knock-down price. Also cited is the case of an owner who kept watch for 48 hours, changed the lock as soon as the property was empty and barricaded himself inside until the occupant collected his things, leaving a note with instructions on the door.

The technical detail that keeps recurring is uncomfortable: a reinforced door is not enough. Lock cylinders can be forced, even reinforced ones, and in this case the entry was through the terrace, quietly and with plenty of time.

How the case ended: a neighbour's call and a lone occupant

The outcome came through a route no one had foreseen. With the complaint expanded at the police station to request precautionary measures and an appointment already booked with an eviction company, a neighbour warned that someone had just entered again through the terrace. Police arrived, found a lone occupant — described as a slim man — and, according to the affected owner's account, were not sure how to proceed. The situation was resolved without paying the 3.000 euros.

The small print remains: the owner admits he was lucky. If children had been involved, the outcome would have been different, and he himself acknowledges it. The question the case leaves open is not whether it worked, but how many times it would work the same way.