“How to Legally Address the Illegal Occupation of a Property,” an “eminently practical” manual. Recommended book.

Although the political and media left tries to downplay the problem of squatting in Spain, the reality is that more and more people are falling victim to this situation. To the well-known “door-kicking” squatters, the “rental squatters” have been added in recent years. These are people who rent a property, stop paying, and refuse to leave. This manual, published by Vicente Magro, a Supreme Court judge, is aimed at those victims, as well as their lawyers and security forces. It includes specific complaint models and resources for specific situations.

Published by La Ley, “Cómo afrontar jurídicamente la ocupación ilegal de un inmueble” (“How to Legally Address the Illegal Occupation of a Property”) is “an eminently practical manual on one of the most serious problems of today, which has persisted over time without measures being taken to fight it. Society feels there is absolute impunity behind this phenomenon.”

In an interview on La Trinchera of esRadio, the judge stated that “the Housing Law has missed a great opportunity to solve a problem that, curiously, only exists in Spain within the European context.” He explains that in countries like Italy, France, Germany, the Netherlands, or Belgium, “this is resolved within 72 hours, as it should be.”

The figures are alarming. While immediate expulsion occurs elsewhere, in Spain, processes can drag on for years, thus encouraging a phenomenon that affects thousands of people annually. “In Spain, there are 40 squats a day, totaling 16,000 squatting crimes a year,” Magro asserts. “How can it not be serious that you come home to find the lock changed and people inside?” he asks indignantly. Additionally, there are rental squatters, which are usually not included in official statistics because they are considered mere rent defaults.

The judge suggests that landlords could report the latter through criminal channels, which would allow them to request precautionary measures, such as immediate expulsion. “If I pay the deposit, the first month, and stop paying the second, in my view, it’s fraud,” argues Magro, noting that the Supreme Court is already differentiating this crime from mere contractual non-compliance. “When I contract with the intention of breaching, it is fraud,” he states.

Vulnerability is another controversial issue. Vulnerability reports that halt evictions for years are often used by people who work off the books. “Vulnerability must be verified,” insists Magro, who believes that “the Law should establish a verification filter and not take it for granted,” something that often happens. Property owners complain that Social Services grants vulnerability over the phone without checking anything.

“That’s why many jurists are calling for a Comprehensive Law on the squatting phenomenon that addresses all these issues, because that is what is done in a state governed by the rule of law and what provides legal security to citizens and legal operators,” asserts Magro. “Restoring confidence to citizens to invest in housing and allowing those who want to rent it honorably to do so” is essential. “If not done well, prices rise because landlords only want to rent to those with proven solvency,” he warns.

The judge criticizes the Housing Law passed by the Government, which “establishes excessive protection for tenants,” discouraging investment in the sector. “People no longer see it as profitable to buy a flat to rent it out if tenants stop paying and can remain for up to 3 years without recovering possession.”

Magro insists on the need for “a housing policy that protects both parties, the landlord and the tenant,” and that requires administrations to find housing alternatives for vulnerable squatters within a set period. “If within a month they haven’t found an alternative, I evict them,” defends Magro, highlighting the injustice of turning small landlords into the government’s “social shield.”

To deal with door-kicking squatters, the judge proposes solutions: from self-protection protocols in neighborhoods to clarifying the law so that the police know how to act. For example, in the case of a flagrant crime, officers can expel squatters without a court order. “What is the timeframe for flagrancy? If they enter at 8 in the morning and I arrive at 4 in the afternoon, is it still flagrant? I believe so, but the police need a comprehensive law to clarify this.”

Officers must also know the squatters’ tricks, such as the “Telepizza technique,” to show they have been in the property for more than 72 hours. Magro suggests that officers look for a “counterproof,” such as an alarm system that records the time of entry. The testimony of other neighbors is also important, emphasizing the need for self-protection protocols to raise community awareness about the importance of reporting. “If the caller is a neutral neighbor and says they just saw people enter the apartment, the police have a safeguard,” he concludes.