neighborhood union pressure
Two weeks earlier, five strangers entered a residence in Valencia, recording the incident with their cell phones. They laid a document on a table and pressed the occupant to sign it. The page stated: “I promise to leave my house at the address below,” and those present warned the resident that he had 14 days to vacate or they would forcibly remove him. This account comes from the tenant’s complaint. The group, described as part of a squatting operation, presented themselves as enforcement but carried no official authority. A nearby witness initially mistook them for police due to their uniforms and opened the door, though she promptly notified the police later that day.
They arrived at midnight and did not depart until 8 p.m., harassing the resident for eight straight hours. He recalls, “They cut off water and electricity twice, tried to break the door, and at one point warned, ‘either leave now or we’ll remove you tonight.’” Those affected described the intimidation and coercion as deeply distressing.
Marlo was not living in a slum; he was described as a tenant facing serious health challenges. Disabled to a significant degree due to bone disease, he declined disability benefits in the past. A translator, versed in five languages, has supported him for years, navigating life in Spain for two decades. “I didn’t know where social services were until now,” the individual explained.
His condition worsened a year ago, leading to illness, job loss, and an inability to pay rent in mid-2022. He now requires regular blood transfusions and a heating source to keep his bones warm due to osteonecrosis, with a caregiver named Josep assisting in daily tasks. A lawyer from the Housing Rights Office in Valencia, who is handling the case, noted that cutting off electricity again would be fatal for someone needing warmth to manage painful bones.
Photos show Marlo at his Valencia home after an attempt by an empty company to force entry. The article documented that the company’s operations were based in Madrid and that the phone number listed in their materials did not function.
Marlo’s landlady filed an eviction suit, but the Valencia 29th First Instance Court suspended the case until June, with a possible extension to December. The suspension aligns with a government-backed social shield referenced by local media.
Ultimately, the judge ordered that Marlo remain in his home at least through June while his housing options are explored and an alternative plan is considered. Despite the court’s protective stance, Marlo reported that the landlady paid a private company to attempt removal, triggering an anxiety attack.
In the narrative, the company listed in the documentation had a financial presence in Madrid and operated with a nonfunctional phone line when attempts were made to contact them. The article closes with a cautious note: the ongoing effort to stabilize Marlo’s living situation continues as authorities coordinate with housing rights advocates.
A community response emerged as activists from Valencia Housing Association and the Orriols Neighborhood Association gathered to deter eviction attempts. A local representative explained that the visitors were not legitimate authorities and that residents should avoid opening doors under pressure. A city councilor noted that authorities could not intervene in the actions of the company without a formal court order. Activists reported that the eviction attempt paused around mid-afternoon, with plans to resume on a subsequent Friday if the situation repeated itself.
Regarding the signed document, Valencia’s housing rights lawyers stated that it had no legal validity and functioned only as leverage to pressure the tenant. An attorney who approached Marlo explained that a judicial decision already protected him from eviction until June.
Second complaint
Marlo has filed a second complaint after five individuals entered his home two weeks earlier. He returned to court that morning and heard there were already multiple open cases in Valencia concerning similar incidents. He described the five men as tall and stocky, noting that they claimed to want a discussion, but their demeanor suggested otherwise. He stressed that his illness and vulnerability were not a basis for bargaining with threats. While a pension provides some support, Marlo did not want to rely on subsidies and expressed a desire to stay employed and feel useful again, even while acknowledging the ongoing health challenges. He remains determined to regain stability and continue contributing as his health allows.
Note: The account emphasizes the residents’ concerns about coercive eviction tactics and the ongoing tension between vulnerable tenants and aggressive private eviction activities. It also highlights the role of local advocates and municipal authorities in offering protection and pursuing legal remedies. The broader context reflects how housing rights groups monitor and respond to such incidents to safeguard vulnerable residents. [Source attribution needed for local housing rights organizations and court actions].