Urbagestión Desarrollo e Inversión has proposed placing Maricarmen’s former home in the Reviva housing programme, which could give her access to a stable and affordable lease. The 87-year-old remains in hospital after her September 23 eviction, following about 70 years in the Madrid flat.
The proposal went to Madrid City Council after the eviction, but it is not a signed agreement. Reuters reported that the September 23 eviction was the fourth attempt to remove Maricarmen from the property.
Urbagestión says it did not demand an unusually high rent. Three years ago, Maricarmen’s lawyer asked in writing about the price of a possible new lease, the company says. Urbagestión replied that it could consider a discount of between 40% and 50% below the market price.
The company says that response was later used as evidence of an attempt to raise the rent sharply. It rejects that interpretation. The dispute involves a tenant with limited mobility or a disability, as the BBC and Reuters have reported.
Urbagestión acquired the property after Maricarmen had spent seven decades there. That history is central to the public reaction.
The biggest dispute concerns an alleged proposal from 2018. Urbagestión says it never offered Maricarmen the option of buying the flat for about €250,000 or staying there for €1,650 a month.
BBC and Spanish media reports describe the rent dispute differently. After the property changed hands, the monthly rent was reported to have risen from €500 to €2,650. A reduced figure of €1,650 was later discussed, still above Maricarmen’s reported pension of about €1,350.
Those amounts remain part of two competing accounts of the proposed lease. The figures themselves are not in dispute; their meaning is.
Urbagestión also disputes claims about the Ministry of Housing and Casa 47. The company says neither made a purchase offer and that they could not legally do so. It identifies the only purchase proposal it received as an offer from the lawyer representing the Sindicato de Inquilinas.
Casa 47 tried to mediate, Urbagestión says, but the effort never became a definite written offer. In recent weeks, a rent of up to €900 was discussed verbally, with Casa 47 and Maricarmen expected to cover the payment.
The proposed arrangement did not settle the lease’s legal form or establish who would pay expenses. Other contract terms also remained undefined.
Urbagestión has accused the Sindicato de Inquilinas of pressure and disproportionate coercion, saying the group deliberately disqualified it and blocked an agreement. An earlier housing investigation examined the eviction and Urbagestión’s position in Madrid’s property market.
Urbagestión confirmed that it filed a criminal complaint against the Sindicato de Inquilinas de Madrid in January. The complaint alleges coercion and disclosure of secrets, and accuses the group of offences against the company’s honour.
The company says it respects court decisions and the work of social services. It has also expressed regret over Maricarmen’s situation. The Guardian reported that the legal dispute included Urbagestión’s argument that an earlier sublease was invalid. The company argued that the tenancy had so ended, and the owners won that point before the highest court.
Madrid City Council said it had an emergency accommodation option for Maricarmen after the eviction, including a place in a residential care setting. Reuters also reported that Maricarmen’s lawyer had referred to documents that had been filed or were awaiting review. The legal process did not stop the eviction.
The city had an option. The eviction still went ahead.
Spanish reporting describes Urbagestión Desarrollo e Inversión SL as a Madrid-based real-estate investment management firm founded in 2005. The case has drawn political attention because it puts tenant protection in eviction cases into focus, alongside the circumstances of a vulnerable long-term resident and investment ownership.
The Reviva proposal offers a possible route back, but no agreement has been reported. The eviction has already happened, and Urbagestión’s denial does not settle the competing accounts over the rent and the €900 figure. The alleged purchase offer is also disputed.
For Maricarmen, the immediate question is whether the proposal becomes a legally defined home. For now, it remains a stated solution to a dispute that is still open.
