The Supreme Court rejected an appeal and confirmed the measure adopted by the Housing and Urban Development Service (Serviu) to recover an apartment that a woman acquired through a subsidy, but instead of enabling it, she leased it to a third party. Now the property will be assigned to another family.
A woman must return a social housing acquired through a subsidy to the Serviu, after an inspection revealed that the property was leased in the Placilla sector of Valparaiso.
so what the Supreme Court ruled by rejecting the appeal filed by the beneficiary against the judgment issued by the Court of Valparaíso, which also dismissed a challenge to the revocation administrative act issued in 2017 by the Housing and Urban Planning Service.
The social housing was delivered on August 21, 2013, but a random inspection revealed that a third party other than the beneficiary and her family group lived in the property declared in the social protection file.
Third lived in apartment
Given this, the Serviu began the process of returning the property, but the owner sought to annul the action arguing that it was not notified by the state body, which was rejected by both courts.
In addition, during the process, she was unable to prove why at the time of the inspection she or another member of her family group was not in possession of the property, which was inhabited by third parties.
Although the Serviu resolution was decreed in 2017, the process lasted for several years due to the appeals filed in court by the woman, which were rejected by both the Valparaíso Court and the Supreme Court.
Department will be assigned to another family
María Paz Cueto, deputy director of the Serviu of the Valparaíso region, indicated that the housing solution policy targets people who really need it, especially given the deficit that is registered in the country.
Within the faculties of the service, he explained, “There is the supervision that those people who receive a subsidy, inhabit their home and do not celebrate acts or contracts such as a lease or deliver it to third parties to inhabit, taking advantage of some profit”.
By not accrediting that he lived in the apartment, the Serviu took steps to recover it and deliver it to a person who actually has a lack of housing.
“She is not currently in the property, therefore, the provision (for restitution) has already been made. The important thing is that we can now redirect this house”Cueto clarified.
To conclude, he indicated that this case had originated after a complaint.
What does the law say?
The Ley 17635 establishes that an action may be filed for the restitution of the subsidy if the beneficiary does not live in it personally, he or any of the members of his family group declared at the time of applying for the respective housing subsidy for at least five years, counted from its tradition or material delivery, if the latter were earlier, or not give it a mainly residential use.
It will be understood to incur in the cause indicated above when the dwelling is without residents; when it is occupied habitually, exclusively and under any title by residents who are not members of the family group declared by the beneficiary at the time of the application; or when the home is intended for non-residential use.