The Maricarmen Abascal housing return in Madrid is one of the most prolific stories to emerge from Spain’s housing crisis in recent times. The 87-year-old was evicted from the Madrid apartment where she had lived for more than 70 years, taken to hospital following the eviction, and then offered the opportunity to return to the same home just days later.
Her case triggered protests across Spain and contributed to an extraordinary political debate about rents, evictions and housing security.
But what actually happened?
And why did the eviction of one elderly tenant resonate so strongly across Spain?
Who Is Maricarmen Abascal?
María del Carmen “Maricarmen” Abascal is currently an 87-year-old Madrid resident who had lived in the same apartment in the Retiro district for approximately 71 years. BBC
On 23 September 2026, she was evicted following a lengthy legal dispute concerning her tenancy.
Images of Maricarmen crying at the property and being removed from on a stretcher quickly spread across Spain, and she was subsequently admitted to Madrid’s Gregorio Marañón hospital.
Her eviction came at a particularly sensitive time.
As explained in our previous article on the Spanish housing crisis, Spain is already experiencing severe housing pressures which also include rising rents, insufficient construction in high-demand areas and a relatively small social-housing sector.
Maricarmen therefore became much more than an individual housing case.
Why Was Maricarmen Evicted?
Upon further research into this, I came across conflicting information that made it very important for me to report the facts carefully.
Unlike what I had initially assumed, the eviction was not simply a case of a landlord arriving and removing a tenant without legal authority. This eviction also followed a legal dispute that strectched back several years, until it was ultimately carried out under a court order.
- However, the dispute centred around an unusually long-standing tenancy (whatever that means), and the expiry of the protections under which Maricarmen had occupied the apartment.
- The property had also changed ownership to new management.
Urbagestión, the company that acquired the apartment, maintained that the previous rental arrangement had legally expired and that it was entitled to recover possession.
That means we now have 1 legal and 1 moral question to consider:
- Was there a legal basis for the eviction? Well, after three previous attempts to evict her were blocked by the same courts (I think this is important to mention), they finally gave permission for the eviction to proceed.
2. Should an 87-year-old person in a vulnerable position be removed from a home they have occupied for more than seven decades without suitable alternative accommodation?
- This is the important human/compassionate question that transformed this case into a national controversy.
Maricarmen had reportedly been paying approximately €500 per month, including certain associated costs. The Madrid Tenants’ Union said Urbagestión was initially looking for €2,650 and then reduced to approximately €1,650. Bear in mind that this reduction was still considerably more than she had previously paid, and more than her entire monthly pension of €1,350.
Urbagestión disputed the way the rent negotiations were portrayed and said it had not demanded that Maricarmen pay more than her existing rent during the legal proceedings. The company also said its proposed new tenancy would have been priced substantially below the property’s market rent. Cadena SER
What is clear is that the parties were unable to reach an agreement that prevented the eviction.
I try to be as objective as I can when researching and explaining these articles, so kindly allow for my own personal bias in my follow-up questions below.
- Isn’t it interesting that Urbagestión was able to reduce the inital asking price comfortably by up to €1,000 euros?
- Am I supposed to assume that they still wouldn’t be able to make a pretty profit across their entire operation, assuming a universal €1,650 charge for the same type of property? Regardless of what they paid in the final acquisition of the entire property?
Now, we also know that a prominent, unnamed writer offered to cover the monthly difference indefinitely so that Maricarmen could stay, but Urbagestión ignored the offer. What this suggests to me specifically, is that Urbagestión may have wanted actual possession of the property, instead of higher rental income; maybe to resell, renovate, or re-let under different terms. But this is all just personal conjecture, so I strongly encourage you to carry out your own research on the matter before drawing any lasting conclusions.
So What Happened During the Eviction?
Tenant campaigners attempted to prevent Maricarmen’s removal, the Police eventually enforced the court order and she was removed from the apartment on a stretcher.
The reaction generated by these images was enormous.
Demonstrations followed in Madrid and elsewhere in Spain, while protesters established a camp in Madrid’s Puerta del Sol.
Around 30,000 people reportedly marched in Madrid over the following weekend according to Reuters, and The Madrid Tenants’ Union argued that Maricarmen’s experience represented a much wider problem faced by renters struggling with affordability and housing security.
Her story had become a focal point for frustrations that had been building long before her eviction.
How Was Maricarmen Allowed to Return Home?
Rather than Maricarmen’s eviction being the end of the dispute, negotiations suddenly restarted.
Madrid’s municipal housing company, Empresa Municipal de la Vivienda y Suelo (EMVS), acted as mediator between Urbagestión, Maricarmen’s representatives and her family. The Madrid Tenants’ Union also participated.
After several hours of negotiations, an agreement was finally reached and Maricarmen accepted a new 8-year tenancy. Most importantly, her rent will be limited to 30% of her net income.
Her lawyer estimated that this would leave her paying approximately the same amount as before, around €500 per month including expenses. El País
Did Maricarmen’s Case Actually Change Housing Policy?
The political response was so fast even lightning would have been impressed. This only shows that people do indeed carry a terrifying amount of power if they’re angry enough and then use that frustration to band together in order to achive a desired outcome.
On 29 September, the Spanish Government announced urgent housing measures.
Housing Minister Isabel Rodríguez explicitly connected the government’s response to Maricarmen’s eviction, saying the country had an opportunity to prevent similar cases happening again. La Moncloa.
- The new proposals included stronger protections against the eviction of vulnerable tenants without alternative accommodation, alongside wider changes that affect rental contracts, landlords and housing investment.
Was the Outcome a Victory for Protesters?
Well, the Madrid Tenants’ Union certainly sees it that way. Some campaigners argue that public pressure forced negotiations and demonstrated that organised tenants can influence housing decisions.
Urbagestión presented the agreement somewhat differently, saying that it voluntarily offered a socially appropriate solution that recognised Maricarmen’s vulnerable circumstances. El País
What Can We Learn From Maricarmen’s Story?
I desperately want to jump on the bandwagon that demonises Urbagestión. However, I think we should do the harder job of looking even closer at the system(s) that encourage(s) even bigger players than Urbagestión to do some of the things they have the power to do.
So yeah, maybe the most interesting lesson is that housing disputes are not always simply questions of whether something is legally permitted.
- Property owners do have legal rights at all levels.
- Tenants also have legal protections.
- Courts are interpreters of the law, and their job is to apply the law to the best of their ability.
However, as integral as housing is to every major facet of our economies, housing is first and foremost a deeply personal affair; we’re talking about someone’s home for crying out loud.
Maricarmen’s case raises a difficult question, without providing any easy answers:
- How should a housing system balance property rights, with the security of vulnerable people who may have nowhere suitable to go?
Every recent event is telling us that Spain’s government is now attempting to answer that question at a national level, or they’re screwed.
And within only days of Maricarmen’s return having been agreed, the country’s housing dispute became connected to something even larger; the collapse of the government’s housing legislation and the calling of a snap general election.
“If You’ve Found This Article Helpful, Please Consider Supporting This Site”