In general terms, the Spanish Civil Code establishes that the obligation to assist and care for a vulnerable person is primarily that of the immediate family, i.e. ascendants, descendants and siblings, provided that they have the economic capacity to do so. However, in the case of a landlord, the landlord’s obligation is strictly limited to what is stipulated in the tenancy agreement and in the applicable provisions of the Civil Code or special legislation on tenancy. An additional burden of care or protection should not be imposed on a vulnerable tenant, but there is a legislative tendency to impose certain duties or restrictions on the landlord in special cases, such as prohibitions on eviction in situations of vulnerability.
If a vulnerable person has relatives in a stable economic situation, they would in principle have a legal duty to provide moral and material support. In the event of a breach of this duty, the person concerned could claim maintenance, which would include not only food but also housing, medical care and other essential expenses. Consequently, the landlord should not be legally obliged to take care of a vulnerable person.
The Civil Code, in its articles 142 and 143, establishes the obligation of maintenance between close relatives, including ascendants, descendants and siblings. This obligation includes providing what is necessary for food, housing, clothing and medical care. Therefore, if a person is in a vulnerable situation and has close relatives with a stable economic situation, it is they who would have the legal responsibility to provide for their basic needs.
As for the landlord, his relationship with the tenant is governed by the tenancy agreement and the specific legislation on urban tenancies. According to case law, the landlord’s responsibilities are limited to maintaining the dwelling in a habitable condition and complying with the contractual clauses, without extending to duties of personal assistance.
The landlord’s obligations towards tenants, including those in vulnerable situations, are mainly regulated by Law 29/1994, of 24 November, on Urban Tenancies (LAU). This law establishes that the landlord must maintain the property in a habitable condition and carry out the necessary repairs to keep it in a suitable state for use, as stated in article 21 of the LAU. However, the LAU does not impose any obligation on the landlord to provide additional social or economic assistance to vulnerable tenants.
However, in situations of recognised vulnerability, legislation has introduced specific measures to protect these tenants. For example, Royal Decree-Law 11/2020 of 31 March introduced the suspension of eviction proceedings for vulnerable households without alternative accommodation during the COVID-19 pandemic. The problem is what is meant by vulnerable households.
In terms of case law, the Constitutional Court addressed the suspension of evictions in cases of vulnerability in its decision 32/2019 of 28 February. The Court considered that the summary procedure established to regain possession of illegally occupied dwellings respects procedural guarantees and does not render the occupants defenceless, as long as they have not been declared vulnerable. Similarly, the possibility of bringing an action against “unknown occupants” and the form of notification provided for are compatible with the right to effective judicial protection and the principle of contradiction.
However, the landlord cannot sue the economically stable relatives of a person declared to be at risk for non-payment of rent, unless they have assumed a legal or contractual obligation to pay. According to article 1257 of the Civil Code, the lease contract is only valid between the signatories, so if the contract was signed by the vulnerable person alone, their relatives are not obliged to pay the rent, unless they have signed as guarantors, sureties or co-tenants.
Article 142 of the Civil Code establishes the obligation to provide food to relatives in need, which includes housing. However, this obligation does not automatically make family members responsible for the rent or entitle the landlord to demand payment directly from them. In any case, the person declared vulnerable could sue their relatives to fulfil their duty of support, including paying the rent, but this action is against the person concerned and not the landlord.
There are exceptions in which relatives could be sued, as mentioned above, such as when they have signed as guarantors, voluntarily assuming the obligation to pay in the event of non-payment by the tenant, in accordance with article 1822 of the Civil Code, or when they have expressly accepted payment in a private agreement. In this sense, Supreme Court Ruling 154/2017 recognised the obligation of family members to contribute to the expenses of a relative in need, but established that this obligation must be claimed by the vulnerable person and not by third parties such as the landlord. Similarly, Constitutional Court decision 32/2019, as we have also mentioned, emphasised that a person’s vulnerability can be a factor in avoiding eviction, but does not mean that third parties are automatically responsible for their debts.
Therefore, the landlord has no legal basis to sue the relatives of a tenant declared vulnerable for non-payment of rent, unless they have expressly assumed this obligation by contract. The obligation to provide support is a family responsibility, but its enforcement must be promoted by the person declared vulnerable, not by the landlord.
Today, there is no clear concept of what vulnerability is, and therefore of the characteristics that define it. This means that there is no clarity or detail as to its classification. Can a person or persons who have direct relatives in a stable economic situation be considered vulnerable?
To what extent should the landlord be responsible for the tenant? Because even if there is a vulnerability, as we have mentioned above, articles 142 and 143 of the Civil Code express a clear obligation for the family in a stable economic situation and not for the landlord to take responsibility for this situation of vulnerability. This makes us wonder: how should the economic situation of the immediate family members affect the declaration of a person’s vulnerability?
******
More information:
Lupicinio International Law Firm
C/ Villanueva 29
28001 Madrid
P: +34 91 436 00 90
