Post by account_disabled on Mar 14, 2024 0:48:09 GMT -6
Nothing lasts forever, according to Spanish justice. The Supreme Court has rejected the appeal of a young man who requested a housing solution from the Community of Madrid after being evicted from his officially protected housing (VPO), when the regional government sold the property to a company and could not meet the cost. rent, already at market price.
The Social Chamber of the high court declares that "the granting of public housing for rent in accordance with a certain social assistance program does not imply that the Administration (here, the Community of Madrid) acquires a permanent and continuing obligation to resolve the housing situation of the person who obtained said housing", but, he adds, " only the effective compliance with what is provided for in the specific aid plan and in its own terms ."
In this way, "subsequent incidents regarding the Phone Lead occupation of the home", such as its sale to a company or the increase in rental income, " do not give rise to the possibility of claiming a benefit equivalent or analogous to that granted in its day".
The case dates back to 2011. That year, the Community of Madrid granted a young man public housing for rent with an option to buy, along with financial aid such as rent reduction.
Later, the administration sold the property to a private company, which eliminated the benefits that the Administration had granted (such as the reduction in rent). Due to this, the young man could not keep up with the rent payment and was evicted.
The young man appealed because he understood that the autonomous Administration was obliged to grant him the requested benefits aimed at being able to meet the pending payments and avoid eviction or, alternatively, to grant him another social assistance home.
But the high court does not agree with him when explaining that the incidents that occurred after the award of the rental home " do not alter the nature of the act on which the appellant intends to base the right to obtain the benefits that he now requests."
It points out that the young man " cannot expect to be granted the requested benefits as a supposedly obligatory action for the Administration " because the administrative act in question (the granting of the VPO in 2011) is an act that is fulfilled and exhausted by itself. , that is, once the home is awarded it loses all subsequent virtuality.
"The events or incidents that may occur subsequently do not affect the content or effectiveness of the act, which is limited to the granting of that specific home and is fully fulfilled with the signing of the corresponding lease contract," he adds.
The Social Chamber of the high court declares that "the granting of public housing for rent in accordance with a certain social assistance program does not imply that the Administration (here, the Community of Madrid) acquires a permanent and continuing obligation to resolve the housing situation of the person who obtained said housing", but, he adds, " only the effective compliance with what is provided for in the specific aid plan and in its own terms ."
In this way, "subsequent incidents regarding the Phone Lead occupation of the home", such as its sale to a company or the increase in rental income, " do not give rise to the possibility of claiming a benefit equivalent or analogous to that granted in its day".
The case dates back to 2011. That year, the Community of Madrid granted a young man public housing for rent with an option to buy, along with financial aid such as rent reduction.
Later, the administration sold the property to a private company, which eliminated the benefits that the Administration had granted (such as the reduction in rent). Due to this, the young man could not keep up with the rent payment and was evicted.
The young man appealed because he understood that the autonomous Administration was obliged to grant him the requested benefits aimed at being able to meet the pending payments and avoid eviction or, alternatively, to grant him another social assistance home.
But the high court does not agree with him when explaining that the incidents that occurred after the award of the rental home " do not alter the nature of the act on which the appellant intends to base the right to obtain the benefits that he now requests."
It points out that the young man " cannot expect to be granted the requested benefits as a supposedly obligatory action for the Administration " because the administrative act in question (the granting of the VPO in 2011) is an act that is fulfilled and exhausted by itself. , that is, once the home is awarded it loses all subsequent virtuality.
"The events or incidents that may occur subsequently do not affect the content or effectiveness of the act, which is limited to the granting of that specific home and is fully fulfilled with the signing of the corresponding lease contract," he adds.