Madrid (EFE) and he could not afford the rent, already at market price.
The Social Chamber of the high court declares that “the concession of public housing for rent in accordance with a specific social aid program does not imply that the Administration (here, the Community of Madrid) acquires a permanent and continuous obligation to resolve the housing situation of the person who obtained said home”, but, he adds, “only effective compliance with the provisions of the specific aid plan and on its own terms”.
In this way, “subsequent incidents regarding the occupation of the dwelling”, such as its sale to a company or the increase in rental income, “do not give rise to claiming an equivalent or similar benefit to that granted in its day”.
A case dating back to 2011
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 suppressed the benefits that the Administration had granted (such as reduced rent). As a result, the young man was unable to keep paying the rent and was evicted.
The young man appealed because he understands that the regional Administration was obliged to grant him the requested benefits aimed at being able to make payment to the pending payments and to enervate the eviction or, secondarily, to grant him another social assistance housing.
But the high court does not agree with him when explaining that the incidents that occurred after the rental housing was awarded “do not alter the nature of the act on which the appellant intends to base the right to obtain the benefits that he is now requesting.”
It points out that the young person “cannot claim that the requested benefits are granted as a supposed obligatory action for the Administration” because the administrative act in question (the concession of the VPO in 2011) is an act that is fulfilled and exhausted by itself. , that is, that once the house is awarded, it loses all subsequent virtuality.
“Events or incidents that may occur later do not affect the content or effectiveness of the act, which is limited to the granting of that specific home and is fully complied with by signing the corresponding lease,” it adds.
The entry The Supreme Court ignores a young man evicted after selling his VPO to a private company was first published in EFE Noticias.