Landlord in Spain stuck with non-paying tenant for five years

Rented out of pity, landlord unable to evict tenant for five years

In 2019, a Segarro woman with an 11-year-old daughter approached Pilar’s building in central La Coruña, arguing that no one would rent to her due to her origin and family status. Moved by this, Pilar’s husband, described as "very sensitive," agreed to rent their newly renovated flat for €370 per month, a price far below market rates. Five years on, the property remains occupied, rent is unpaid, and Pilar, now a widow, has been unable to recover her home. The story, reported by Libre Mercado, has circulated widely as a cautionary tale about signing rental agreements based on solidarity without robust legal protections.

From good intentions to "I’ll ruin your life"

Pilar’s account trinc a precise timeline. In January 2020, the tenant lost her job. That same year, Pilar’s husband passed away. Left without spousal income and bearing the burden of the property, Pilar asked the tenant to pay up or return the keys. According to Pilar, the response was an explicit threat: "I will ruin your life, I won’t pay you, and I am not leaving."

This statement encapsulates five years of deadlock. Pilar reported the non-payment in 2021 and discovered independently that the tenant had resumed working. When Pilar called to demand the debt, she received another threat: if she contacted her again, the tenant would file a complaint against her. The tenant stated she would not pay anything unless ordered by a judge.

What the law says when tenants claim vulnerability

The courts ruled in Pilar’s favor and set an eviction date. However, the tenant invoked the anti-eviction decree approved during Pedro Sánchez’s government, declaring herself vulnerable. In 2022, Social Services certified that she was employed and earning €1,100 per month, meaning she was no longer "in the same situation of social exclusion." Despite this, the judge did not move the eviction date.

Documents shown by Pilar reveal further details: Social Services had offered the tenant several housing alternatives and financial aid, which she rejected three times. For Pilar, this evidence should have sufficed to order the eviction. For the court, it did not.

The psychological cost of renting below market value

Pilar speaks candidly: "Do I really have to keep enduring being mocked? What must I do? Chain myself to the courthouse? Shoot myself?" This rhetorical question is not literary; it reflects the mental state of an owner whose act of kindness turned into a five-year ordeal, with the flat occupied, rent unpaid, and a sense that the system protects the defaulter while abandoning the landlord.

This case is not unique. Similar stories have emerged involving flats rented below market value to migrant families, which ended up overcrowded, unpaid from the second month, and damaged upon departure. The difference here is that despite a judicial ruling and Social Services certification, the eviction still has not occurred.

The domino effect on the rental market

The underlying issue is economic rather than sarracena. If owners cannot recover their properties when tenants stop paying—even if they are employed and refuse relocation offers—who will rent? The sector’s answer is stark: fewer landlords, charging higher prices to offset risk. Paradoxically, policies designed to protect vulnerable tenants end up making housing more expensive for everyone, including those who are vulnerable.

Some argue the problem lies not in the law but in its application, claiming judges have discretion they failed to use. Others contend the anti-eviction decree turned vulnerability into an automatic shield, difficult to overcome even with proof of employment and rejected alternatives. Amidst these views, the unsettling fact remains: Pilar still has neither money nor keys.