The chief of staff of the president of the Community of Madrid, Miguel Ángel Rodríguez, confirms to 'ElConstitucional.es' that Isabel Díaz Ayuso is "looking for alternatives" to move the offices of the Real Casa de Correos. However, he describes as "false" that the reason for the move is due to the housing protest camp in Sol, as reported by 'Cadena SER'. "Because of the construction work, as everyone knows," Rodríguez justified in response to this newspaper's questions.
The broadcaster assures that these offices are already being equipped for Ayuso. From the Presidency headquarters, according to the sources cited by the aforementioned media, they neither confirm nor deny that this will be the chosen location, although they acknowledge that they are looking for alternatives to carry out the work usually done in Sol. Therefore, the move to Canal is not yet presented as a definitive decision. It is one of the possibilities the Presidency is considering to move its activity out of the Real Casa de Correos.
Likewise, the chief of staff of Ayuso's Presidency, when asked by this media about whether they had the possibility of moving to the Canal offices, why they bought the Chamberí penthouse for 6.3 million euros, Miguel Ángel Rodríguez avoids answering and deflects the focus.
The PSOE's complaint against Planifica Madrid reaches Adjudication
The complaint filed by the PSOE of Madrid before the Court of Accounts for the purchase of the 6.3 million euro penthouse in Chamberí takes a new step. The body has transferred the written statement and the documentation presented by the procedural representative of the socialist spokesperson in the Madrid Assembly, Mar Espinar, to its Adjudication Section.
'ElConstitucional.es' has had access to the Court of Accounts' document, dated September 30, in which the body communicates that it has received the documentation related to the public action exercised by Espinar in relation to the operation carried out by the public company Planifica Madrid, Proyecto y Obras M.P., S.A.
The Court of Accounts indicates that it has transferred the documents to the Adjudication Section "so that, if appropriate, they may be processed as provided in articles 56 and concordant articles of Law 7/1988, of April 5, on the Functioning of the Institution."
The move represents a new step in the complaint filed by the Madrid socialists, who demanded that the operation to purchase the property and its subsequent disposal be examined and that it be determined whether any type of accounting responsibility could have existed.
The PSOE denounced a possible “patrimonial damage”
The PSOE of Madrid went to the Court of Accounts after appreciating, as stated in its brief, indications of alleged “patrimonial damage” related to the acquisition of the penthouse. The socialists demand that it be clarified how the operation was conceived, who decided to promote it and what was the “specific need” that justified a public company of the Community of Madrid acquiring the property for 6.3 million euros.
The complaint also requests an investigation into the actions of Pedro Corbalán, CEO of Planifica Madrid, the public company that executed the acquisition. The PSOE asks the auditing body to determine whether there was a specific agreement by the board of directors of Planifica Madrid to approve the selection of the property, the price, the earnest money, and the investment.
Likewise, it demands to know what budgetary, technical, and legal controls were required before executing the operation and whether these were activated.
The PSOE questions the purchase documentation
In the document submitted to the Court of Accounts, the socialists focus on the documentation sent by the Community of Madrid regarding the acquisition of the penthouse. According to the PSOE, this documentation would not include a specific agreement from the board of directors regarding the purchase, a prior necessity file, or a specific document for budgetary control or auditing of the acquisition.
The party therefore demands that the different steps of the operation be reconstructed and that it be determined who proposed initiating negotiations, who authorized the movements, and who ordered the payments.
It also asks to know the dates of the operations, the bank accounts used, and the bodies that received information about them.
Among the documentation requested are also the item or capital provision imputed to the operation, the cash flow statement, the treasury forecast, the budgetary modifications, and any possible authorizations from the Treasury or the Ministry of attachment.
The “specific need” of the penthouse, under scrutiny
One of the central points of the socialist complaint is the justification for the need to acquire the property.
The PSOE maintains that it does not have a document that specifies the “concrete need” that would have justified the purchase before February 27, 2026.
In this regard, the document also questions the existence of a “preparation of a needs report dated July 2, 2026, after the consummation of the purchase.”
The socialists consider that this circumstance must be examined to determine how an operation that had already been consummated was administratively justified.
The complaint also incorporates a chronology of the steps that have been documented, from the confidentiality agreement of February 3, 2026, to September 15, when the end of the rental of the space by Planifica Madrid to the Community of Madrid was formalized.
