Forum user cites 37% drop in Barcelona rental listings

Housing law and rentals: the case of an apartment that excludes children

An apartment has been listed on a real estate portal for a year and a half without finding a tenant, according to a participant in the discussion: the ad explicitly excludes those with children. The case, circulating in the thread and pointing to Idealista, names a phenomenon some participants describe as childphobia in rentals.

It is not a literal phobia. It is arithmetic, according to the dominant view in the debate. When regulations classify almost any family with children as vulnerable, landlords do the math before signing. If the tenant stops paying, eviction can drag on indefinitely, leaving the owner with the occupied property, IBI (property tax), community fees, and repair costs. Against this scenario, keeping the housing closed starts to seem like a sensible option.

Why does having children suffice to be a “vulnerable family”?

The prevailing interpretation is that the vulnerability label, intended to protect those who truly need it, has stretched to cover any household with minors. A direct consequence, according to this view: non-payment no longer has a reasonably quick resolution, and the landlord faces years of legal proceedings, with the added possibility of ending up accepting a social rent below market price.

During the pandemic, suspending evictions had clear health justifications. The problem arises, participants argue, when that exceptional measure is extended without an expiration date. An exception turned into permanent rule forces the market to defend itself quickly: by screening tenants before showing the house.

Forum user estimates a 37% drop in rental housing in Barcelona

The aggregate effect is no longer discussed only in private offices, according to the thread. A participant claims to have seen data on regional television attributed to the Servei Català de l'Habitatge: the new rental law would have removed 37% of available housing from Barcelona's rental market. It’s not that they were all sold. Much of it remains there, closed, waiting for times with less legal risk.

According to participants, the figure aligns with what portals show: lower supply, sustained prices, and ads accumulating months without a single serious visit. Supply isn’t destroyed by decree; it withdraws itself.

Tax on empty flats and calculations that don't add up

In the Basque Country, a participant points to a move in the same direction, with a revenue twist: a fee of 10 euros per square meter for homes vacant for more than a certain number of years. The stated intention is to mobilize closed flats. The predictable effect, they argue, is different. Older owners with dilapidated flats, unable to rent them as-is and unwilling to sell, lose capital; large holders, however, have room to endure.

When the risk of renting exceeds the cost of keeping the shutters down, the decision isn’t ideological. It’s accounting.

Rentals without contracts, word-of-mouth, and by rooms

One consequence already noted in the thread: leasing is shifting toward rooms without contracts, word-of-mouth agreements, and agencies that screen candidates before confirming if the flat even exists. If the landlord cannot choose legally, they choose through the back door. And those left out of this informal circuit are usually the same profile: those with irregular income or a minor dependent.

Students fare slightly better, according to another participant, but with fine print: eleven-month contracts, those that fit outside indefinite rental logic. Large holders have long operated in this range, with residences and seasonal formulas. Here, vulnerability doesn’t apply.

Fewer private landlords, more funds

On the table is a less anecdotal reading raised in the debate. Each tightening reduces the number of individuals willing to rent and concentrates supply in the hands of large holders, real estate firms, and investment vehicles, capable of litigating, diversifying risk, and negotiating with administration. The individual who rented an inherited flat has none of that.

The paradox is uncomfortable: rules designed to protect tenants leave them facing fewer counterparts and less negotiation margin. When four actors dominate the market, price isn’t set by official gazettes. It’s set by scarcity. And scarcity is being manufactured at a good pace.

The most optimistic calculation, according to the thread, holds that building more housing is enough and everything else is noise. The most pessimistic suggests small landlords are exiting the market never to return.

Meanwhile, the initial apartment remains listed. Year and a half. Unrented. No children.