Doña Maricarmen’s case has been used as a perfect piece of political propaganda. An elderly woman, a home in Madrid, a supposed “vulture fund”, an “abusive” rent increase and a Government willing to present itself as a defender of the vulnerable. It is pure lies and propaganda. With the known data, the story of the caviar left does not hold up. Reality refutes point by point several of the messages that have been spread around the case.
First of all, We are not facing an arbitrary eviction or the expulsion of a tenant with a current contract. The original contract was signed in 1956 under Franco’s old rent regime and was extinguished in accordance with the Urban Leases Law of 1994. The second surrogacy of the daughter occurred in 2005, outside the legal assumption that would have allowed the contract to be maintained, and without a situation that could justify an exception. The contractual termination was declared by the Provincial Court of Madrid and subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court. The sentence has been final for three years. The tenant’s personal situation may be regretted, but a democracy cannot replace firm judicial resolutions with political campaigns based on slogans.
In second place, The company rejects having tried to impose a rent of 1,650 euros per month. That figure, which has circulated in the media and social networks, was not a proposal from Urba Gestión. The amount of 250,000 euros corresponded to the notification of the tenant’s right of first refusal in the event of a sale made by the previous owner, not to a purchase offer made by the company. And the figure of 1,650 euros is not a contractual offer from the company.
The company also maintains that, at the request of the tenant’s legal representation, it indicated three years ago that a new rental could be considered with a bonus of between 40% and 50% over the market price. That is to say, an immediate increase was not demanded nor was a contract of 1,650 euros proposed as a condition to continue in the home. The property tolerated the tenant’s permanence for years despite there being a final termination sentence. During that period, the company assumed expenses for the property and mortgage. Until the extinction, the rent was about 200 euros per month, to which approximately 220-250 euros for community, water and heating were added. It is not an evil and unscrupulous company nor is it a large real estate fund. The company is not an investment fund, but a small Madrid company for which this home is its only property.. Turning a small property owner or a small heritage business into a “vulture fund” caricature is not housing policy, but propaganda and manipulation.
The Government has tried to occupy the space of the protective mediator, but here another lie appears. Urba Gestión affirms that neither the Ministry of Housing nor Casa 47 made an offer to purchase the home. Nor would a written and legally articulated proposal have been formalized to guarantee the continuity of the tenant, contrary to what some famous propagandist claims. The possibility of a rent of up to 900 euros, assumed equally by Casa 47 and the tenant, was verbally communicated. However, fundamental elements such as the nature and duration of the contract, expenses, guarantees, obligations of each party or the legal formula to make it viable were not specified. That’s not a solution. It’s a headline. The Minister of Housing has 3 apartments, seven ministers make up 24 and the Sanchista Government has 39. The State is the largest real estate owner.
Ayuso and Almeida offered public accommodation to Mrs. Maricarmen, who inherited a rented apartment with a regulation from the Franco era at a ruinous price. However, the fault lies with Ayuso and “the market.” Nobody believes it.
Housing has become one of the great failures of the economic and social policy of the Government of Pedro Sánchez. After eight years in La Moncloa, the Executive cannot hide its lack of results behind the demonization of the owner, the company or private investment. Spain needs more supply, more legal security and more investment. What you get, instead, are ads, propaganda, regulatory uncertainty, and a confrontational strategy. A serious administration, if it really wants to avoid a situation of vulnerability, has instruments at its disposal. It can act through social services, social rents, direct aid, public housing, guarantees, professional intermediation or written and financed agreements. What you cannot do is use an individual case to display moral superiority while leaving a real solution unrealized.
Pedro Sánchez has been governing Spain for eight years. During this period, housing has gone from being a relevant problem to becoming one of the greatest economic and social concerns of households.. The Government has successively announced tens of thousands of public, social, affordable, Sareb, rental or mobilized housing. The accumulated number of announcements has been around 400,000 protected homes in six years, but the effective results are far below that promise. Since 2021, some 49,000 protected homes have been certified, just 12% of what was promised in the propaganda advertisements. And almost zero built. What’s more, the Government itself has had to lower its commitment linked to the Recovery Plan before the European institutions. The goal of 25,000 social rental homes “built or rehabilitated” was now formulated around 15,718.
The gap between propaganda and execution is also seen in the budget. According to data from the General Intervention of the State Administration cited in September 2026, the Ministry of Housing had executed only 1.8% of its definitive credits during the first half of the year, 66 million out of 3,595 million.
The Government and its allies have found a politically profitable adversary, the so-called vulture funds. The problem is that this label serves to hide the fundamental causes of the housing problem. The real problem is a combination of a shortage of final land, urban planning obstacles, bureaucracy, taxation, legal uncertainty, construction costs, price intervention and a supply incapable of responding to the growth in demand. Investment funds do not own “the entire home” nor do they explain the general rise in market prices.
The Executive should ask itself why the absence of affordable housing still persists
Data from the Bank of Spain place housing in the hands of legal entities – companies, SOCIMIs, financial entities and funds, together – at around 8% of the total stock. 92% would be in the hands of individuals. That 8% figure cannot be attributed exclusively to the funds, much less used to construct a theory of speculative control. In traditional home sales between 2019 and 2024, the investment attributable to funds would have represented an average of 1.86% of the total volume transacted. Families, small owners and domestic buyers concentrated between 97% and 99% of the investment.
While the Government builds stories, Spain continues to face a serious problem of access to housing. The question that the Government should ask itself is why, after eight years in power, the lack of affordable housing persists, why the announcements do not translate into keys being delivered and why the official response increasingly consists of intervening in the market and less in expanding the supply. Spain does not need to re-enthrone a Francoist system of old rents that destroys incentives to rent, maintain and rehabilitate homes.
Doña Maricarmen’s case deserves respect, sensitivity and a serious solution. What it does not deserve is to be used as a propaganda instrument to hide eight years of unfulfilled advertisements, insufficient supply and a housing policy based exclusively on demagoguery.