After the termination of a lease, it is common to find ourselves faced with damage to movable property or the property itself that has been the object of the lease. On many occasions, these deteriorations are the consequence of time and normal use of the property in question, but, nevertheless, we can find ourselves in very different situations, such as procedures in which the evicted, dissatisfied with their situation, intentionally causes damage to the property. home or premises he occupied.
The problem is to determine who is responsible for said damages and the origin of them, and obviously, to collect the possible compensation, since we are faced with an evicted person who may not have sufficient financial means to pay for the damage. .
In this sense, a recent ruling by the Provincial Court of Cantabria has sentenced a man to a fine of 1,800 euros and the payment of compensation of 98,000 euros to a man who destroyed the premises he had rented.
In this case, the convicted person, after learning that he had to leave the premises due to an eviction, destroyed it to the point of dismantling the roof of a dining room, the terraces, the toilets and the kitchen, threw partitions, started electrical installations, the radiators and gutters, and made holes and scratches in the floor.
In his defense, he argued that when he began to occupy the premises in question it was in “terrible state”And that he only removed the furniture that he had installed in the premises in order to exploit his business.
Instead, the court understands that there is obvious damage to the premises and the same "They do not correspond to the alleged removal of the furniture used by him in the exploitation of his activity, or to the removal of the separable equipment from the premises”. In addition, it states that the action of the accused corresponds to “a real dismantling of the premises facilities, with the elimination of structural elementss ", what"far exceeds what is intended"And, therefore, such damage"by its nature and severity it evidences a malicious intent to damage the rental property”.
Ultimately, the aforementioned resolution establishes the person responsible for the damage. However, the practical reality can be very difficult for the owner of the real estate, since he will find numerous impediments to collect the corresponding compensation, such as the lack of financial solvency of the cause of the damage. Well, if an eviction has been carried out, it is because there was previously a lack of payment from the tenant.