The PSOE of Madrid has requested the Court of Accounts to investigate the purchase by the Community of Madrid of a penthouse valued at 6.3 million euros in the Chamberí district, as it sees signs of alleged “patrimonial damage” and demands, among other things, that it be identified who promoted the operation and with what “concrete need”.
This is stated in the complaint filed, in which the socialist group asks for clarifications on how the operation was forged, whether there was a specific agreement by the board of directors of Planifica Madrid to approve the selection, price, earnest money, and investment, and what budgetary, technical, or legal controls were required and if they were activated.
An operation that, according to the PSOE, must remain under scrutiny
The party's spokesperson in the Assembly, Mar Espinar, has defended in statements sent to Europa Press that the objective is that the “opaque maneuvers” to “buy a huge penthouse” do not go “unpunished”.
“Let all the shenanigans of this scam be investigated, because against the dignity of Mari Carmen and those who are fighting for the right to housing, Madrid does not deserve the indignity of a president who made the entire community dance to buy a mansion,” Espinar sentenced.
In the document, the PSOE informs the Court of Accounts that, in the information sent by the Community of Madrid regarding the acquisition of the penthouse —after the appearance of the Minister of Presidency, Justice and Local Administration, Miguel Ángel García Martín—, there is no specific agreement from the board of directors regarding the purchase, nor a prior necessity file, nor a specific document for budgetary control or auditing of the acquisition.
Chronology, earnest money, and pending documents to clarify
The socialists include a chronology of the documented steps, from the confidentiality agreement of February 3, 2026, to September 15, the date on which the end of the rental of the space by Planifica Madrid to the Community of Madrid is formalized.
For the rest of the unidentified milestones —from the authorization of the down payment to the disbursement of the cost, including the decision to start negotiations—, the PSOE asks for an investigation into who proposed the step, who authorized it, who made the payment, as well as the date, the bank account, and the body that received the information.
The socialist group also maintains that it does not have in its possession a document that specifies the “concrete need” that justified the purchase decision before February 27, and points out that the “preparation of a necessity report dated July 2, 2026, after the consummation of the purchase” would imply, in its opinion, a retrospective coverage of that disbursement.
Likewise, it questions that the documentation provided does not show specific agreements from the board of directors that support the different movements and demands, regarding this entity, the imputed capital item or provision, the cash flow statement, the treasury forecast, budgetary modifications, authorizations from the Treasury or the Ministry of attachment, payment authorization and ordering documents, and complete accounting entries.
Appraisal, warnings, and possible gross negligence
The PSOE also focuses on the fact that there is no record of a search for other properties or a market consultation, while emphasizing that the independent appraisal of February 13 set a value 57,115 euros lower than the price paid, not including taxes.
“The appraisal made warnings about discrepancies between registered and verified areas; about the existence of part of the terrace enclosed or conditioned without registered reflection; about the lack of statutes or certification from the community that would allow knowledge of certain restrictions; and about the absence, at that time, of the energy efficiency certificate,” the party states in the complaint.
The socialists maintain that the purchase would have been decided and committed without the required information or controls, and ask for a quantification of how much “damage” has occurred after the “utility obtained” until the property was put up for sale again.
In its conclusion, the PSOE points to signs of “gross negligence,” including the “extraordinary” amount of the investment, the 630,000 euros of earnest money, and the “apparent absence of specific corporate approval.”
It also mentions the “apparent lack of a prior necessity report,” the absence of “risk assessment reports for the earnest money,” the express warnings from the appraisal, and the “apparent” absence of an analysis of alternatives, in addition to the need to document the economic-financial coverage of the investment and the controls applicable to a public commercial company, as well as the “subsequent disappearance of the need for lease and termination of the contract, without possession or use of the property.”