canary islands holiday home fines decree

Holiday home fines persist in Canary Islands despite decree

Fines continue despite decree

A year after a decree was introduced to stop fines being issued to people who wanted to live in their apartments or use them as second homes in the Canary Islands, rather than renting them out to tourists, those penalties are still arriving. In April, owners of one such apartment on La Gomera received a proposed fine of 2,250 euros for using the property as a residence instead of a tourist let. When calculating the penalty – classified as a serious offence – the authorities considered the apartment’s location in the heavily tourist-oriented area of Valle Gran Rey.

One of those affected told this newspaper that the property was bought by her father through great effort and has been inherited by three siblings who want to enjoy it, not turn it over to tourist use. “We are retired and we want to enjoy and share family life here,” she said. She explained that the family has roots on La Gomera, giving them a strong connection to the island, even though they have lived on Tenerife. She said it did not seem fair that they – or hundreds of other families – should receive these fines.

Parliamentary debate and official response

The issue was debated in the Canary Islands Parliament this week. Members of the Platform for Those Affected by the Tourism Law attended to follow a motion in which Nueva Canarias questioned the Tourism Minister about the decree passed last year, which was supposed to stop the fines. They consider the decree a failure and asked why the sanctions are still being issued. The minister, Jessica de León (PP), pointed out that the law under which these fines are now being imposed on complexes dates back to 2013. She said the law covers the principle of single management – meaning apartment owners cannot rent them out independently but must do so through an operator – and that land use must follow the municipal planning regulations.

De León limited her comments in the chamber to saying that she was not in government when the law was passed, and stressed that when an operator brings a complaint, her department is obliged to process it and enforce the law. She also said that solutions were being sought and insisted on a dialogue table. Furthermore, she highlighted that there are 176 open cases across the islands: 110 appeals have been lodged, 66 have no appeal, 37 are pending referral, 63 are awaiting resolution, and ten have already been resolved.

Campaigners’ criticism and legal arguments

“They tell us they are obliged to fine because there are complaints, but processing a complaint does not necessarily mean imposing a sanction,” said a spokesperson for the Platform for Those Affected by the Tourism Law. “The administration can and must analyse each case. When there are established rights, a fine is not appropriate.” According to figures provided by the group, based on official bulletins, there have been 128 payment notices and 178 initiation resolutions. Since the decree-law came into force, there have been 62 initiation resolutions.

“When we bought the apartment, nobody told us anything. There are apartments in this complex whose owners want to be part of the tourist operation, and that is fine. We do not oppose that. But there are families like us who do not want to be in it. So why should we be fined? Why should we be reported? The operator has reported us and now we are being fined. It is a very unpleasant situation – you go to your own place, your own space, and you find these complaints,” lamented one of those affected on La Gomera. “Let the operator run whatever he wants, with whichever apartments he wants, and leave those of us who do not want to be involved alone. On La Gomera, there has always been a mix – some people in the complexes were part of the tourist operation and some were not, even within the same operator. There have never been these problems before,” she insisted.

No legal basis for fining residential use

The affected owner, who says her family has already appealed the fine because paying it would mean accepting they are in the wrong – and she does not believe the administration is – pointed out that when her father bought the apartment in the late 1990s or early 2000s, he was never told he could not enjoy it himself and would have to hand it over to a tourist operator. “It is a residential-use apartment – that is what the land registry says. It is also what the original purchase contract my father signed said. There is no legal basis for fining residential use,” she said.

The Platform for Those Affected by the Tourism Law continues to fight against the many fines. Maribe Doreste, spokesperson for the group, explained that as early as last year they warned the decree would not stop the sanctions because it required owners to request a change of use for their properties. “It is a trap. You cannot request something you already own. If you request something you already possess, you are putting yourself on the wrong side. You are telling the administration that you consider your property to be for tourist use and therefore you are applying for residential use. But what we defend is that our uses are legal and established,” she said.

Failed decree and future concerns

Decree-law 2/2025, presented as a solution, has neither suspended the fines nor resolved the problem. A year after its approval, the penalties are still coming. According to the platform, the decree has not only failed, but has reinforced the classification of their homes as accommodation units, cementing the obligation to use them for tourism and even, in some cases, subjecting them to single operators within complexes. The group sees a strategy to transform certain areas – such as Maspalomas – into exclusively tourist zones where residents disappear. “They want to impose a model of a holiday city without citizens,” they said. Those affected also stress that they are not engaged in any tourist activity and are residents, not operators. They therefore argue that the regional tourism department has no jurisdiction over them. “Let them regulate tourist activity, of course. But we are not a tourist activity,” the platform emphasised.

Source

Scroll to Top