Spain landlord faces €10k debt as vulnerable tenant eviction halted

€10,000 in lost income and a stalled eviction order

On December 31, 2022, Montse Díaz López rented out her only property, an apartment in Arteixo (A Coruña), for €450 a month. The tenant, a 28-year-old man who signed the contract alone, stopped paying entirely in June 2023. Montse won the lawsuit and obtained an eviction order on April 27, 2024. However, the order was suspended: the tenant was declared vulnerable under Royal Decree-Law 37/2020. Since then, the accumulated debt has reached nearly €10,000, while the owner continues to pay €364 in mortgage installments, €70 in community fees, and non-payment insurance premiums.

This case is not just another private default. It illustrates a regulatory clash between two legal protections: that of a tenant at risk of social exclusion and that of a small landlord who relies on rental income to cover their mortgage. The owner summed up the dilemma with a question that runs through the entire issue: "Who helps me?"

What the suspended eviction order says

The contract was signed at the end of 2022 for €450 per month. The tenant began delaying payments in March 2023 and stopped paying rent in June. Montse had non-payment insurance, which covered one year of lost income, but the policy does not prevent judicial proceedings or subsequent suspensions.

The owner filed a complaint and won. The court set the eviction date for April 27, 2024. It was not executed: the tenant was declared vulnerable on April 9, 2024, based on a social services report citing a minor child and a reduction in salary. The regulation protecting him, Royal Decree-Law 37/2020, was extended by Congress after the omnibus decree lapsed, and the government again suspended evictions of vulnerable tenants.

The accumulated debt from unpaid rent is around €10,000. This is added to the monthly mortgage of €364, €70 in community fees, and insurance costs. The owner lives with her husband in his home, purchased before marriage under a separation of assets regime. The rented apartment is her only real estate asset.

Who decides if a tenant is vulnerable

The declaration of vulnerability is not made by a judge. It is issued by social services. In this case, the report arrived on April 9, 2024, and was the piece that blocked the already ordered eviction. The tenant was working but claimed a salary drop; with a minor child, social services indicated he could qualify as vulnerable.

Some argue the system protects tenants who stop paying while leaving compliant owners in limbo. Opponents counter that the alternative—executing the eviction without offering rehousing—would leave a family with a minor child homeless. The core issue is that no intermediate solution has been articulated: neither the eviction is carried out nor alternative housing is offered to the tenant, while the owner bears the cost.

Montse herself went to social services. The response she received was that she could stop paying her mortgage and declare herself vulnerable, since she has a minor daughter. Her immediate reply was that if she stops paying, she loses the home. The suggestion turns the creditor into a potential debtor.

Market reaction: less renting, more filters

This case has revived a calculation many small landlords make openly: if the risk of prolonged non-payment cannot be covered, why rent at all? The prevailing view in analysis calls not for subsidies, but for legal certainty. Without it, they argue, small owners withdraw and the market contracts.

Strategies discussed range from requiring a guarantor with owned property to asking for employment history before signing, to avoiding renting to families with minors or those with low salaries. The filter shifts from the contract to the person: vulnerable candidates are screened out before signing, not after they stop paying.

This filter has a perverse effect. If owners only rent to civil servants, large company employees, or tenants with solvent guarantors, lower-income households—precisely those the law aims to protect—find fewer options and higher prices. Protecting the vulnerable tenant ends up reducing the number of landlords willing to rent to them.

The clash of two incompatible rights

The issue pits two legitimate rights against each other. The tenant has the right not to be left on the street if vulnerable. The owner has the right to receive agreed rent or, failing that, to recover their property. The regulation protects the former by suspending the eviction; it does not compensate the latter or offer a fast resolution path.

The practical consequence is that the cost of protection falls on a private individual, not the State. The owner continues to pay mortgage, community fees, and insurance while rent remains unpaid. Montse’s question—"Who helps me?"—has no institutional answer within the current framework.

Montse has joined Aprovij, the first national association of homeowners fighting legal insecurity, along with other landlords from A Coruña and its region. She hopes her case will be reviewed and the eviction order enforced. Meanwhile, the regulation remains in force, and the apartment stays occupied without rent.

---

How many cases like this must occur for legislators to understand that protecting one party cannot miccionan abandoning the other?