Madrid Tenants Union demands indefinite contracts and rent freeze

Indefinite rents and eviction ban: the ultimatum

What happens if a rental agreement has no end date? The Madrid Tenants Union has turned this hypothesis into a formal demand, complete with a protest encampment. Their manifesto includes five key points: indefinite contracts or automatic renewal, extensions for existing leases, a ban on evicting vulnerable tenants without alternative housing, reform of the Urban Leasing Act (LAU), and limits or freezes on rent increases. The message accompanying the encampment is clear: without indefinite contracts, the protest will not end.

What the Madrid Tenants Union demands

The core document lists five points, but the full program goes much further:

• Indefinite rental contracts or automatic renewal.
• Extension of currently active contracts.
• Ban on evicting vulnerable people without alternative housing.
• Reform the LAU to regulate short-term and room rentals.
• Limit or freeze rent increases.

Additionally, there is a longer list of demands: lowering rents (their website even mentions 50%), expropriating properties held by "vulture funds," returning tourist and holiday apartments to normal use, expanding public housing with Sareb in the spotlight, and ending evictions and anti-occupation groups. This is not a working document: it is an ultimatum with a political expiration date.

Who bears the cost of indefinite extensions?

The least debated part of the package is also the most expensive. If a primary residence lease becomes indefinite, the owner loses the ability to reclaim the property at the end of the term but continues to cover property taxes, insurance, community fees, and, where applicable, utilities. Some summarize the effect with an uncomfortable phrase: de facto expropriation. The apartment remains in the owner's name, even if they cannot reclaim it.

The scenario that most worries the sector combines the two flagship measures: a lease without an end date and a ban on evictions. A non-payment leaves the landlord without rent and without the property, with expenses running at their own cost. The debate is further complicated by the argument that the law already includes mandatory extensions; critics argue that what is now being requested is to extend them without compensation. The predictable result, they argue, is not a fairer market but a smaller one: if renting out property ceases to be profitable, less property will be available.

From vulture funds to individual landlords

Finger-pointing targets vulture funds. The list circulating in the debate, however, looks little like BlackRock. According to an unverified list, a singer-songwriter would own about 20 properties, a well-known TV presenter 19, and several national deputies between 8 and 12. No registry source has confirmed these figures, so they should be treated as unverified claims.

The Union's program demands expropriating the portfolios of major holders, using or dissolving Sareb, and returning tourist rentals to normal use. In response, some participants invert the list: they argue that the real "vulture funds" are individuals with large portfolios of rental properties, not large investment funds.

More demand, same supply: the uncomfortable part

One strand of analysis places the problem's origin in simple arithmetic: more people looking for housing on a stock that barely grows. According to a circulating calculation, about 3,000,000 new residents have entered in the last eight years, with the number of housing units remaining virtually identical. Those who support this thesis conclude that regulating prices without building new housing solves nothing; it merely distributes the existing housing stock more fairly.

The Union's program points in a different direction: returning tourist and holiday apartments to normal use, expropriating major holders' portfolios, and expanding public housing. The disagreement lies not in the data but in which part of the equation is prioritized. Several participants warn of the same consequence: any measure that reduces rental profitability also reduces the number of properties available for rent.

The 300 pesetas building

A recurring example arises when discussing old rents. On Menéndez Pelayo Street in Palencia, a building once housed tenants paying 300 pesetas in 2001, according to collected testimony. The building was evacuated due to collapse risk and later rehabilitated while preserving the facade. Each side uses it to their advantage: some see proof that old rents did not ruin anyone and prevented hoarding; others see a portrait of the deterioration that plagues the housing stock when rent does not cover maintenance.

With an encampment, an ultimatum, and winter ahead (some assume the cold will end the protest), the standoff continues.