A housing law that took effect on May 25 requires landlords to cover certain costs in rental transactions. One key item is the administration fee paid to real estate agents for their brokerage work. In tight markets, agents have often shifted these charges to tenants, sometimes demanding upfront payments that amount to several months’ rent to secure a rental. The new rule is changing this dynamic, but the transition has revealed loopholes and tactics some agencies use to keep the old model, placing the burden back on tenants. The law was enacted to close these gaps and remove the traps.
Pablo D., a young Madrid resident, found a well-located, bright apartment that seemed affordable, reported at under one thousand euros per month. After completing initial paperwork and proving solvency, the couple appeared to pass the first test. The next step involved paying a reservation, or holding fee, to secure the unit.
According to the realtor, the reservation included just one additional monthly payment plus VAT. The agent also requested a set of personal data to prepare a formal reservation document. Pablo asked whether the hold would be deducted from future rent, and the agent said it would not. It became clear that the couple had walked into a trap: the reservation fee plus VAT effectively replaced a full month of agency fees.
When Pablo asked for an official invoice, he confirmed his suspicions. The agent replied that the fees would be invoiced after the contract was signed, and that the reservation proof would serve as temporary documentation. This exchange, captured in a WhatsApp conversation reviewed by EL PERIÓDICO DE ESPAÑA, shows the agent asserting that wages for the service were non-discountable and that the reservation was part of the typical revenue for the agency. The implication was that discounts were not available, and the fees could be presented under a different name to bypass the new law.
The affected party described the reservation as surprising because it included VAT. The article notes that the agency later claimed the fees were not discounts but separate charges, and that they had reformulated the wording to comply with the letter of the law. The couple remained attracted to the rental and wanted an invoice so they could pursue reimbursement later. This tension underscores the need for clear documentation when the law is new and still evolving.
A “services provided” document
The story did not end there. In the days after the law took effect, the agency did not send the expected invoice or reservation proof even after the couple deposited funds. They were told to sign instead of making a reservation and to sign a document that supposedly served because the owner did not want to pay fees. The impression persisted that some practitioners were unsure how to align practice with the new statute.
Under the new rule, the cost of real estate management and contract formalization should fall to the landlord. Reports indicate that Pablo accepted the arrangement thinking it complied with the law, even though the settlement process felt irregular. The tenant describes the experience as almost a scam—an impression reinforced by the remark that signing was a reluctant shortcut when the owner avoided paying fees.
During a viewing that preceded signing, the couple expected not to pay an agency fee under the new framework. Yet they soon realized that a trap had been set, and the contract had to be signed to proceed. The account highlights the tension between reform promises and real-world practice by some agents who aimed to preserve the old market reality.
Unions: “Put a ‘fee’ on the bill”
The case is not isolated. Carme Arcarazo, spokesperson for the Barcelona Tenants’ Association, notes that many tenants contact the group as they renegotiate leases. In Barcelona, some contracts previously triggered fees equal to 10 percent of annual rent; under the new rules, the landlord is expected to shoulder those costs. In some cases, negotiations have occurred, while in others agencies argued that the tenant did not pay, claiming the new regulation did not apply to their charges. The association advises tenants to request an invoice that clearly itemizes any fee as a formal charge and to resist letting other costs obscure the claim.
Arcarazo argues that the law provides a clear framework: if the invoice lists a legitimate fee, a claim can be pursued and refunds may follow. The association has faced similar disputes since 2019, and its experience supports the view that legitimate charges can be identified and challenged when properly documented. If a response to a claim seems evasive, it can signal misclassification.
José María Alfaro, president of the Federation of Real Estate Associations, notes the challenge of implementing housing reform so quickly. He refers to various draft laws and the evolving reality that contracts can be examined at multiple stages, with some agents involved before signatures and others afterward. As a sector of many micro enterprises, missteps are understandable, and data on adaptation remains limited. He points out that, in practice, fees are often split or shifted depending on demand, with landlords in high-demand cities sometimes covering the costs. He labels the broader phenomenon as problematic and questions its constitutionality, suggesting potential oversight by political authorities.
Several real estate agents contacted for comment described a situation where tenants still pay fees, especially during times of high demand, arguing that the new rule is not always reflected in current practice. Landlords too sometimes claim that fees have always been theirs due to longstanding market norms. The tenants’ association predicts that requiring landlords to pay will reshape the market, arguing that lenders and real estate professionals stand to gain from keeping prices high or maintaining the status quo. Alfaro, however, advocates a balanced approach—grounded in practical steps and fair costs—that serves the market best. He cautions that aggressive enforcement could undermine warranties and reduce rental housing availability.
The overall picture from industry voices is mixed, reflecting the speed of reform and the varied incentives among parties in the rental chain. The dialogue continues as tenants seek invoices and landlords adapt to the new legal landscape. The evolving discussion highlights the need for transparency, clear billing, and a shared understanding of who pays for what when housing law shifts the balance toward tenants.