The Government of Isabel Díaz Ayuso opposes granting a new social rental to someone affected by the sale of public housing to Goldman Sachs, despite the fact that a first-instance court ruling protects the woman who was evicted by the US fund in 2016. and condemns the Community of Madrid to grant him a new public apartment.
However, the regional Executive has appealed the ruling, claiming that “it is not obliged to resolve the housing situation” of the appellant and citing a previous ruling from the Supreme Court. To support his argument, he assures that “in no case has it been validated by the judicial bodies that an eviction must be accompanied by a housing alternative.” sine qua non“, as stated in the appeal presented by the Community of Madrid and to which elDiario.es has accessed.
Along these same lines, the regional Lawyer maintains that “there is no fundamental right to housing in our country” and emphasizes that the Constitution establishes this right as “a guiding principle of social and economic policy.” With this argument, the Community of Madrid defends that the appealed sentence “blatantly ignores an extreme that is well known in our legal system.”
Evicted in 2016
These are the reasons presented by the Ayuso Government to prevent Ángela (48 years old) and her family from accessing public housing again. In 2009, this woman, mother of a large family, got a social apartment in Valdecarros. At that time, the Community of Madrid awarded it to him due to his “special need” and even granted him a 95% reduction in rent. I paid a monthly rent of 50 euros.
When the Executive of Ignacio González (PP) sold 3,000 public homes to Goldman Sachs for 200 million euros, Ángela lost the social discount on her rent. With the change of landlord, he could not afford the new rent price. “I asked for help from social services, Cáritas and I don’t know how many other things,” he remembers. No one explained to her the consequences that the sale of public housing would have for her and her family. He only received one letter, which he had a hard time interpreting. She began accumulating unpaid bills and, after seeing other neighbors abandon their homes, she was evicted in 2016.
Two years after that launch, the Justice Department declared void the operation by which the Madrid Government got rid of those 3,000 social apartments. The Community of Madrid appealed this decision, and after several judicial setbacks, Ayuso’s team was in charge of managing the recovery of the 1,700 homes that were still owned by the fund.
With the sale already cancelled, Ángela once again requested a social rent. He went to the Social Housing Agency, dependent on the Community of Madrid, but received no response. After the administrative silence, he went to court and there a judge recognized his right.
The Community must respond to “the housing need”
“The Administration that recovered ownership of the homes transferred by a contract declared null and void must respond to the appellant’s housing need that she herself has created,” the judge said. In a ruling issued in September, advanced by this editorial team, the judge also stressed that the Ayuso Government failed to “assess the social and economic circumstances” of the appellant.
In its allegations, the autonomous Executive considers that it is wrong to assert that “the appellant’s housing need has been caused by the Community of Madrid”, since the eviction occurred “due to non-payment of rent to the then owner of the property.” ”, Encasa Cibeles, a company created to manage the purchase of these apartments and 97% owned by Goldman Sachs. “In short and without going into further discussion, the eviction was not caused by the Community of Madrid,” adds the legal team of the regional administration.
The General Counsel of the Community of Madrid believes that the sentence “exceeds jurisdictional functions.” “What in no case is appropriate is to replace the competent administrative authority and grant public housing without any formalities,” insist the lawyers, who explain that the “solution” in this case would be to start the administrative procedure again and that it be the Community of Madrid is the one that decides “whether or not the aforementioned legalization proceeds.”
Finally, the regional legal team defends that “the annulment of the sale does not produce a retroaction of the effects.” In this way, the regional Executive tries to prevent a new front from being opened due to the sale of 3,000 public homes, since if this ruling is ratified, other affected people who lost their home after the change of landlord may follow the same path as Ángela. . The impact that this ruling could have is unknown, since the number of beneficiaries of a public apartment who were evicted or left when their rental lost social protection is unknown.
#Ayuso #Government #appeals #ruling #forces #provide #social #rental #affected #sale #public #housing
