San Blas: 12 Drywall Modules in an 800 m² Warehouse

Twelve drywall modules in a San Blas warehouse

In the debate, it is repeatedly stated that no one here complies with the law: neither the owner, nor the tenant, nor the administration, which, according to participants, looks the other way. In the Fin de Semana industrial park, within the Madrid district of San Blas-Canillejas, an 800 square meter warehouse houses twelve drywall modules that, according to information circulated, were constructed without a license. Minors live there in difficult conditions.
Outside, the owner demands a legal resolution.

What is found in the Fin de Semana industrial park of San Blas

The property was rented by Odilón, a 50-year-old businessman, for 3,000 euros per month. His plan was to expand the workshop and store his clients' cars, which were being stolen of catalysts and particulate filters on the street. Since they failed to obtain an opening license, the prevailing version holds that he opted to divide the space into habitable modules and generate income from them. That’s where it all began.

A family refuses to leave the property. The situation has become a standoff between two parties that, according to comments circulating in the forum, operate outside of compliance: the landlord for building and renting without a contract, and the tenant for occupying it and making an irregular connection to the electricity supply.

From unlicensed drywall to power connection: the irregularities attributed

The case has many layers. Some maintain that the tenant, known as Carlos Wilson, entered without proper documentation and later supposedly regularized his status. He is accused of reselling appointments at his country's consulate, an activity that, if confirmed, would be illegal and untaxed. The most circulated estimate places his monthly income in the black market at around 4,000 euros. No extreme has been validated by a final judgment.

Meanwhile, Social Services reportedly intervened to find suitable housing for the family, which includes minors.

Who pays and who collects in this case?

As several users maintain, the pattern is that of a small taxpayer scrutinized down to the last transaction against a structure that allegedly accumulates urbanistic, labor, and tax infringements without visible consequences. For those same users, if the criterion were applied equally to everyone, the warehouse would be sealed and the modules dismantled. It is not.