Landlord Rejects 11 Applicants in One Hour, Decides Not to Rent

Demands payslips and default insurance, then decides not to rent the apartment

An apartment is listed without photos, only text. Within the first hour, 11 people write to request a viewing. The landlord has erected a barrier: ID, employment contract, the last three payslips, and a solvency assessment decided by an insurer. After 53 messages, the same landlord announces the conclusion: no rent. It is not profitable. Before closing the property, he prefers to assume the risk of non-payment.

This occurs in the most uncomfortable segment of the Spanish real estate market: that of the small landlord who is not a company, has no lawyers on payroll, and manages their only asset as if playing all or nothing with a lifetime's patrimony. The 250-euro default insurance contracted with Santa Lucía, which according to his version covers default and damages, should be enough to sleep peacefully. In practice, the list of candidates becomes a personnel selection process.

What documents a landlord demands to rent

The mechanics are explicit and in the ad: ID, employment contract, the last three payslips, and a solvency study executed by the insurer. Those who do not pass are excluded. Only the first candidate is asked for documentation and their authorization to share it with the insurance.

Here appears a technical warning that many owners ignore: without a signed consent for the legitimate use of these confidential data, the processing of ID and payslips may abusa data protection regulations, as recalled in the thread. Collecting work histories of strangers, without more, adds a legal risk to the economic risk.

The filter is also not neutral, and in the thread it is discussed: some recall that portals remove ads that say "women only" or "students only," while other similar criteria pass without problem.

Candidates who fall before seeing the apartment

In one hour, profiles of all types appear: a couple with one child, a 55-year-old couple whose vvife needs to be near the doctor, a married administrative worker with a self-employed spouse and a child, two men who claim to be friends, a 47-year-old waitress. One applicant presents a contract since 2008, 1,900 euros per month in 14 payments and employed work in an automation company. Another is military and their partner, administrative.

An urgent pregnancy. One looking for an apartment for their retired parents. Another without payslips. The preventive discard works only: some hold that any profile with minors or dependents is a candidate who later cannot be evicted, because the law protects the vulnerable tenant. If they have children, they cannot be evicted, according to that version. If they earn little or declare illness, they are considered vulnerable and the landlord is trapped.

It is the same logic that leads to demanding public employment, preferring couples without burdens, or renting by rooms while the owner figures living in the house. Anything but the filter that truly decides: the payslip.

The arithmetic that kills the operation

This is where the reasoning breaks. A 250-euro policy covers default, damages, and lawsuits, according to his version. But some warn of the fine print: the insurance pays until the eviction is executed, with a judge who may take time, and does not always cover the vandalism of those who destroy the house upon leaving. The actual range of these coverages is not written in any Official State Gazette (BOE).

The landlord's conclusion is that the game is not worth it. Prefers not to enter anything, keep the apartment, and save on utilities, insurance, and problems. The only option he contemplates is renting to his sister's acquaintance, who is a police officer. Personal trust, not a fortified contract.

The anecdote that circulates goes in the same direction: it is said that a police officer gets their rent lowered without asking, to the point that apartments advertised at 1,200 or 1,400 euros end up closing at 800. True or not, it portrays the market: it rewards the tenant who will not cause problems, even if it means giving away 100 euros per month.

Eleven months of contract and the law of antiestéticar

In parallel, there is a less emotional and more practical discussion. Eleven-month contract, not twelve: if you put twelve, the regulations oblige renewal if the tenant wants, according to the landlord. The insurance covers default while the eviction lasts. And his calculation that the judge takes two months to evict the defaulter is an optimistic datum that no one signs.

Regarding agencies, the opinion is harsh: they charge one month's rent plus five percent monthly. One participant recounts that one of them assured him it would handle everything, while the landlord prefers to draft the contract himself with an OCU model and a lawyer.

The empty apartment vs. the occupied apartment

The starting plan was to leave the house rented while the owner goes to work abroad, at least one year, so that the property maintains itself and someone pays electricity and water. If he leaves it empty, he antiestéticars squatting. If he rents it, he antiestéticars not recovering it. The two exits end up in the same place.

In the end, the problem is not just the tenant. It is the owner's arithmetic: if default is improbable but the punishment is the house occupied for years, the expected profitability sinks below zero. With that differential, the rational decision, according to his criteria, is not to rent. It is not to rent.

There is no round closure. The decision, in the end, is the opposite of what the ad sought: not to rent. Whoever wants to rent an apartment will have to pass through an interview tougher than that of a job. And whoever wants to rent their own, perhaps prefers to leave it empty. That is the exact point where the analysis gets stuck.