Alberto Núñez Feijóo's party would repeal the Government's two housing decrees if it reached La Moncloa. Municipal social services would then have to help vulnerable households find another home.
On 29 and 30 September 2026, the Government approved two housing decrees. One extends protection against some evictions until 31 December 2030. The Popular Party would repeal both measures if Alberto Núñez Feijóo reaches La Moncloa.
The protection applies to vulnerable households without alternative accommodation. It can also cover a case in which a court has ordered an eviction, provided the order has not yet been carried out. The PP says responsibility should instead return to municipal social services.
The measure is not a blanket ban on evictions: it concerns vulnerable households without alternative accommodation and can also cover cases in which a court has ruled for eviction if the order has not yet been carried out.
The rule was designed to prevent cases such as the eviction of 87-year-old Maricarmen Abascal from her home in Madrid's Retiro district. Her case caused public anger and camping protests in several major Spanish cities.
Reuters and the BBC linked the Government's response to the pressure created by the case. Al Jazeera also connected the decree package to the protests.
The PP rejects the protection model.
Party leaders say the safeguards would reduce the number of homes available to tenants. Popular Party sources argue that rents could rise and the risk of illegal occupation could grow. They also say some landlords may become less willing to rent to people considered vulnerable. Feijóo has publicly said the decrees would not produce the results the Government promises.
The wider package goes beyond the eviction shield. Government materials and accompanying reports also describe restrictions aimed at speculative purchases by so-called vulture funds, measures addressing short-term and room-by-room rentals, and incentives for more affordable housing. The two-decree structure means that the automatic extension of rental contracts is handled separately from the eviction protection and is subject to parliamentary approval.
Under the alternative set out by Génova, changes to rental law would not block an eviction. Municipal social services would take up the case and look for another housing option for the family.
That system already exists. Maricarmen's case showed its limits. Town halls do not have enough resources to find an adequate alternative for every person removed from a home. Reports on the decree also describe the limited capacity of local social services as a central weakness in the current system.
The PP wants to increase construction instead of extending tenant protections. Its plan calls for one million new homes and the mobilisation of land with discounts of up to 30% against the market average.
The party also wants more financing for the autonomous communities. Municipalities that facilitate construction would receive greater spending capacity.
A new land law would be needed to speed up procedures. Popular Party sources also point to organised immigration as a way to supply workers for the construction sector. Young people seeking to buy a home would receive tax reductions through lower VAT and transfer tax.
There is a separate problem with the Government's package. The two decrees partly clash. The second would introduce an indefinite extension of rental contracts, while the first sets a two-year extension.
The PP expects the second measure to fail in the vote. It warns that the measure could still appear in the Official State Gazette at midnight on Thursday and remain in force until the vote at 2 p.m. on Friday.
Reuters and the BBC reported that the Government expected Congress to examine the measures quickly.
The timing could lead to claims from private individuals who rely on the measure before its expected rejection. The PP also plans to challenge the decrees in court if they pass. Castilla y León and Aragón have already announced legal action. Génova is considering joining them.
The dispute is about more than rent regulation. It asks who should protect a vulnerable household from eviction: national rental law or local social services after the loss of a home.
The legal shield offers direct protection. The PP says it damages housing supply. Municipal services would handle each case instead, but their resource limits are already clear.
The proposal would change the current policy sharply. Its success would depend on whether new construction and local assistance can provide what the legal protection would no longer guarantee.
