⚖️ Extensive legal manual · Law 39/2015, Law 40/2015 and Andalusian regulations · Inspection and sanctioning procedure

Complete guide on how to handle a tourism inspection in Andalusia

Published May 2026 · Estimated reading time: 35 min · By SALAMA LEGAL SLP · Jacob Salama, Lawyer ICAMALAGA 11.294

The tourism inspection is the first line of administrative control over holiday-let properties (Spanish: viviendas de uso turístico or VUT) and other establishments of the sector. In Andalusia, inspection activity is exercised increasingly intensively by the Directorate-General of Tourism of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sports, in cooperation with municipalities and law-enforcement bodies. Knowing exactly what inspectors can do, what they must do and what the inspected party can —and must— do makes the difference between closing the incident with a minor formality and facing a serious sanctioning procedure that may end with cancellation of the registration.

This manual systematises the matter from the dual framework that governs it: the common framework made up by Law 39/2015, of 1 October, on Common Administrative Procedure (LPAC), and Law 40/2015, of 1 October, on the Legal Regime of the Public Sector (LRJSP); and the Andalusian regional framework formed by Law 13/2011, of 23 December, on Tourism of Andalusia, Decree 28/2016 (consolidated text after Decree 31/2024, Decree-Law 7/2024 and Decree-Law 1/2025) and especially Decree 144/2003, of 3 June, on the Tourism Inspection, which structures the daily practice.

1. Applicable legal framework

Tourism inspection in Andalusia operates within a three-tier regulatory system. Understanding this system is essential because each level brings distinct principles: the common one safeguards basic rights of the citizen vis-à-vis the Administration, the regional sectoral one defines specific infringements and penalties, and the regulatory one governs the actual mechanics of the inspection.

1.1. Common level: Law 39/2015 and Law 40/2015

Law 39/2015 (LPAC) is the backbone of Spanish administrative law. The following provisions are particularly relevant for tourism inspection:

• Article 4 LPAC: standing as interested party. Identifies who can plead and appeal.
• Articles 13 and 53 LPAC: rights of the citizen and interested party (hearing, legal assistance, access to file, copy, identification of staff).
• Article 21.3 LPAC: maximum decision period. In general sanctioning matters, six months; Law 13/2011 confirms this for the tourism procedure (Article 85).
• Articles 53 to 65 LPAC: common procedural rules (hearing, evidence, proposed decision, decision and notifications).
• Article 77 LPAC: evidential value of public administrative documents and of records drawn up by officials holding authority status.
• Article 100 LPAC: enforcement means and need for judicial warrant for domicile entry.
• Articles 112 to 126 LPAC: administrative appeals (hierarchical, reconsideration, extraordinary review).

Law 40/2015 (LRJSP), in turn, contains the substantive principles of the sanctioning regime (Articles 25 to 31) that every sanctioning procedure —including the tourism one— must respect: legality, typicity, responsibility, proportionality, prescription, non-retroactivity of unfavourable rules and concurrence of penalties.

1.2. Regional level: Law 13/2011 on Tourism of Andalusia

Law 13/2011 contains the specific substantive regulation of the Andalusian tourism sector. The relevant provisions are:

• Articles 68 to 70: organisation of the Tourism Inspection, attribution to the competent Ministry, and treatment of inspectors as agents of the authority.
• Articles 71 to 73: classification of infringements (minor, serious and very serious). In matters of VUT, Article 71.1 punishes as a serious infringement the clandestine provision of the service.
• Articles 74 to 78: grading of penalties, proportionality, fines and ancillary penalties (suspension of the activity, cancellation of the registration, disqualification).
• Article 79: prescription of infringements and penalties (one/two/three years depending on classification).
• Articles 80 to 88: specific sanctioning procedure, deadlines and precautionary measures.

1.3. Regulatory level: Decree 144/2003 and Decree 28/2016

Decree 144/2003, of 3 June, on Tourism Inspection, regulates the operational aspects of inspection: inspection plans, identification, records, hearings, interim measures. Decree 28/2016 (consolidated) sets out the substantive requirements for VUT and the specific sanctioning regime (Articles 10 and 11). Decree 31/2024 has clarified operating periods, capacity and material equipment.

2. Types of inspection and ways of initiating

A tourism inspection can be initiated in several ways. Recognising which one has been triggered is relevant because it determines what documentation the inspector will request, what evidence will be taken and what type of defence to prepare.

2.1. Planned inspection

This is the inspection carried out under the annual inspection plan adopted by the competent Ministry. It is usually preventive: it checks compliance with the general requirements of Decree 28/2016 (capacity, equipment, declared operating period, complaint forms, register book, etc.).

2.2. Inspection on a complaint

The most frequent and unpredictable type. It may be triggered by:

• Guest complaint on an official form or electronically.
• Neighbour or community complaint.
• Municipal or police complaint.
• Cross-referencing with the Tax Agency, Labour Inspection, Social Security or platforms (data exchange under Article 9.1.f of Decree 28/2016).

2.3. Preliminary verification actions

The Ministry may carry out preliminary verification actions before the holder is formally under sanctioning procedure: field visits, observation of advertising on platforms, documentary requirements. These actions —typical of Article 75 LPAC and of Decree 144/2003— may later feed the formal opening of the procedure.

2.4. Ex officio actions in inter-administrative cooperation

Articles 9.3 and 9.4 of Decree 28/2016 state that the City Council shall notify the Ministry of urban planning anomalies affecting a registered VUT. Likewise, urban discipline authorities notify provisional or definitive cessations. These communications may trigger both inspection and cancellation of the registration.

Initiation route	Typical document	Main risk
Annual plan	Scheduled visit	Formal anomalies (equipment)
Private complaint	Statement record	Clandestine activity or overoccupation
Preliminary verification	Documentary requirement	Documentary burden
Inter-administrative notice	Official letter	Cancellation of registration

3. Preliminary stage: how to prepare before any inspection

The best inspection is the one faced with documentation up to date and internal protocols defined. Preparation is, therefore, substantive strategy. We distinguish documentary, material and procedural preparation.

3.1. Documentary preparation

Ideally in digital format and immediately accessible, the following documents should be kept:

1. Certificate of registration in the Tourism Registry of Andalusia (with the VUT/SE/00000 signature).
2. Filed responsible declaration and supporting document of the declared operating periods.
3. Document evidencing ownership or operating title (purchase, inheritance, contract with the owner in case of operating company).
4. Latest simple-note of the property (with or without statutory prohibition recorded).
5. Copy of the urban planning compatibility report or urban licence, if applicable.
6. Insurance policies (civil liability) and maintenance certificates (extinguisher, smoke detector).
7. Official complaint and claim forms of the Junta de Andalucía and notice poster.
8. Traveller register book, entry forms and evidence of reporting to the Hospitality Entry System (SES) under Order INT/1922/2003 and Organic Law 4/2015.
9. Payment receipts delivered to the guest (Article 6.2.e of Decree 28/2016).
10. Technical maintenance documentation (air-conditioning, electrical, gas) if applicable.

3.2. Material preparation

Verify before any inspection that the physical equipment of the property meets the Annex to Decree 28/2016 and the official FAQ. The internal audit should at least cover:

• Declared capacity vs. physical capacity (cadastral m², bed dimensions, convertible places).
• Number and composition of bathrooms under Article 6.1.c.
• Cooling and heating consistent with the declared months.
• Kitchen with two burners, oven or microwave, fridge, small appliances and cleaning kit.
• Bedrooms with a wardrobe for every 4 places, a light point, mattresses at least 18 cm thick.
• Bathrooms with Annex equipment (towels, gel, soap, hair-dryer, non-slip mat).
• Smoke detector and extinguisher near the kitchen, first-aid kit.
• Selective waste separation.
• Complaint-form notice poster.
• Evacuation plan —if the community has one— on the property's door.
• Tourist information of the area, appliance manuals.

3.3. Procedural preparation

Three predefined protocols are advisable:

1. Internal communication protocol: who attends the inspector (owner, operating company, contact person), with a fully operational 24-h phone line (Article 6.2.a of Decree 28/2016).
2. Document-delivery protocol: list of documents to be delivered on the spot and those to be filed later electronically within the time limit (it is not mandatory to deliver everything immediately; a time limit can be requested under Article 73 LPAC).
3. Serious-complaint protocol: if the inspection is accompanied by law-enforcement or if a precautionary suspension is announced, the rule is to contact your lawyer before signing anything.

4. The on-site inspection: rights and duties

When the inspector appears —at the property, at the operating company's headquarters or at any other relevant place— the rights and duties of the inspected party come alive. Knowing them in detail is key to not contributing, through excessive cooperation or poorly calibrated obstruction, to your own detriment.

4.1. Rights of the inspected party

• Right to inspector identification: the inspector has the status of agent of the authority (Article 68.4 of Law 13/2011) and must show the Tourism Inspection ID. Ask for it at the start.
• Right to know the scope and reason: the inspector must indicate which procedure is being followed, what documents are to be verified and, if applicable, what prior complaint motivated the visit.
• Right to legal assistance and not to incriminate oneself: the sanctioning procedure expresses State ius puniendi, hence the guarantees of Article 24 of the Spanish Constitution apply. The inspected party is not required to confess or self-incriminate (Article 53.2.b LPAC).
• Right to obtain a copy of the record at the very act (Article 13.d LPAC).
• Right to file allegations and produce documents at any time of the procedure (Article 76 LPAC).
• Right of access to the file (Article 53.1.a LPAC).
• Right to use the official language (Spanish in Andalusia); interpreters can be requested for foreign users.
• Right to inviolability of the domicile (Article 18.2 Constitution and Article 100 LPAC): entry into a constitutionally protected domicile requires consent or judicial warrant. The matter is complicated when the «domicile» is a VUT effectively occupied by a guest: consent must come from the occupant, not from the absent owner.
• Right to presumption of innocence and burden of proof on the Administration: no fact can be deemed proven against the interested party without sufficient evidentiary material.

4.2. Duties of the inspected party

• Allow inspector access to the premises used for the tourist activity (this excludes strictly domiciliary areas not used for the service).
• Provide the requested documentation, save the right not to self-incriminate where strictly applicable. A reasonable time limit can be requested (Article 73 LPAC).
• Provide the information requested in matters connected to the tourist activity.
• Attend the hearings to which you are summoned, with at least 10 calendar days' notice (Article 19 LPAC).
• Do not obstruct the inspection (obstruction may itself constitute an autonomous infringement under Law 13/2011).

4.3. The domicile question: when judicial warrant is required

One of the most sensitive issues. The general rule is that the domicile is inviolable (Article 18.2 Constitution). Article 100 LPAC conditions entry to the holder's consent or judicial warrant, and Article 8.6 of the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction Act gives the Administrative Courts of First Instance jurisdiction over the warrant. However:

• An empty dwelling commercialised as VUT has a mixed nature: during tourist stays it operates as accommodation; closed, it may be a domicile. If the holder does not use it as habitual residence, case-law typically admits entry with fewer precautions.
• A dwelling occupied by a guest: consent must come from the occupant, not from the owner. Without the guest's consent and without judicial warrant, access is not allowed.
• A dwelling that is the holder's habitual residence (per-room group under Article 5.3 of Decree 28/2016): full consent of the holder or judicial warrant is required.

4.4. What if the inspection comes with the Police?

Law-enforcement bodies may assist the Inspection (Article 70.3 of Law 13/2011). Their presence does not automatically turn the inspection into a criminal procedure, but stay calm, record the officers' IDs and contact your lawyer immediately. If the Police act on a flagrant offence (drugs, prostitution), the criminal framework applies separately.

5. The inspection record: contents and evidential value

The record is the key document in the entire chain. From it, in large measure, depends which facts will be deemed proven at the start of the procedure.

5.1. Mandatory contents

Decree 144/2003 and administrative practice require that the record contain at least:

• Inspector identification (name, badge number, Ministry).
• Identification of the establishment and holder.
• Date, time and place of action.
• Description of the facts verified, with the highest precision.
• Documentation examined or requested.
• Statements of the holder or representative.
• Measures adopted or proposed (precautionary, requirements).
• Signature of the inspector and, where applicable, of the appearing party.

5.2. Evidential value: what the Supreme Court says about Article 77.5 LPAC

Article 77.5 LPAC provides that documents drawn up by officials with the status of authority, recording the verified facts, "shall have evidential value, without prejudice to evidence that the interested parties may submit in defence of their rights or interests". This presumption of truthfulness covers:

• Facts directly perceived by the inspector (what they saw, what they heard). Here the presumption operates with force.
• Technical assessments (measurements, counts, checks). Here it operates with some force but admits counter-expertise.
• Subjective assessments (holder's intent, legal opinions). Here the presumption is weak or non-existent.

5.3. Strategy regarding the record

• Read the record carefully before signing, particularly the factual description.
• Request the inclusion of any statements you consider appropriate (we are not obliged to sign «in conformity»; we can sign while recording our allegations or as «not in conformity»).
• If there are factual errors, request their immediate correction; if not corrected, record the disagreement in the record itself.
• Keep the copy of the record and, if possible, photograph the original.
• Note the names of any present witnesses (guests, neighbours) and request that they be recorded.

6. Precautionary measures in inspection

The Inspection may propose, and the Ministry may adopt, provisional measures where there is a serious risk to users' rights, to tourism legality or to the effectiveness of the decision. The general regime is in Article 56 LPAC and the specific one in Articles 80 to 88 of Law 13/2011.

6.1. Types of measures

• Precautionary suspension of activity: the harshest. Used when the activity is being carried out without responsible declaration or with serious safety breaches.
• Sealing of premises: rare in VUT, more typical of hotel establishments.
• Provisional withdrawal of identification plate or advertising elements.
• Remediation requirements with a deadline: technically not precautionary measures, but they operate as such in practice.

6.2. Validity requirements

Every precautionary measure must meet four basic requirements (Article 56 LPAC):

1. Necessity: only if indispensable to safeguard the procedure.
2. Proportionality: the least burdensome effective measure.
3. Motivation: express reasoning, not generic.
4. Prior hearing of the interested party, unless urgency prevents it (in which case, hearing immediately afterwards).

6.3. How to appeal a precautionary measure

The precautionary measure is notified as a qualified procedural act and is autonomously appealable. It may be challenged through:

• A hierarchical appeal (one month) if administrative remedies are not exhausted.
• Or directly through contentious-administrative proceedings if administrative remedies are exhausted.
• Requesting judicial suspension of the measure (Article 130 of the Contentious Act) if execution would cause damage of impossible or difficult repair.

7. The sanctioning procedure

The inspection ends with a record. If the Administration considers there are indications of an infringement, the sanctioning procedure is initiated, regulated by Articles 53 to 91 LPAC with the specifics of Chapter VIII of Law 13/2011.

7.1. Stages of the sanctioning procedure

1. Preliminary actions (Article 55 LPAC): the Inspection gathers information and, if appropriate, makes a proposal to the competent body.
2. Initiation decision (Article 64 LPAC): identifies the alleged responsible party, the facts, the provisional legal classification, the possible penalty, the investigator and, if applicable, the precautionary measures.
3. Allegations from the interested party: 10-day period from the notice of the initiation decision. Evidence is also proposed here.
4. Evidence-taking (Article 77 LPAC): by the instructing body, with hearing of the interested party.
5. Proposed decision (Article 89 LPAC): the investigator specifies the proven facts and the proposed penalty. It is notified to the interested party.
6. Hearing on the proposed decision: 10 days for further allegations.
7. Decision (Article 90 LPAC): by the competent body. Must be notified within a maximum of six months from initiation.

7.2. Abbreviated procedure and acknowledgement of responsibility

Article 85 LPAC allows penalty reduction if the interested party acknowledges responsibility within the deadline (20 % reduction) or makes voluntary payment before the decision (another 20 %). Reduction may reach 40 % if cumulative, but acknowledgement entails the waiver of appeal. It is an option to be assessed case by case.

7.3. Key-deadline table

Step	Deadline	Norm
Allegations to initiation decision	10 days	Article 64.2.f LPAC
Hearing on proposed decision	10 days	Article 89.2 LPAC
Decision and notice	6 months from initiation	Article 21.3 LPAC / Article 85 L. 13/2011
Hierarchical appeal	1 month	Article 122 LPAC
Reconsideration appeal	1 month	Article 124 LPAC
Contentious-administrative appeal	2 months	Article 46 LJCA

8. Evidence, allegations and proposed decision

The defensive core is played in the allegations and evidence stages. A good defence does not merely contest facts formally: it provides material capable of rebutting the inspection record.

8.1. Allegation strategy

• Number the contested facts and address them one by one.
• Distinguish between factual issues (rebuttable with evidence) and legal classification (rebuttable with argument).
• Specifically invoke the provisions the Administration may have breached (proportionality, motivation, party rights).
• Attach relevant documentary evidence: photographs, receipts, invoices, electronic communications, contracts, entry forms.
• Propose witness evidence if there were witnesses present.
• Propose expert evidence if the technical issue requires it (measurements, capacity, equipment).

8.2. Burden of proof

The burden lies on the Administration, by application of the presumption of innocence (Article 53.2.b LPAC). The record carries a presumption of truthfulness over directly perceived facts, but that presumption is iuris tantum and is rebutted by contrary evidence. Case-law is demanding: when the facts in the record are generic or based on inferences, the presumption fades.

8.3. Defence against legal classification

Even where a fact is acknowledged, its classification may be disputed:

• If the Administration classifies as very serious infringement, check the elements of Article 73 of Law 13/2011.
• If as serious infringement, the same regarding Article 72.
• Grading (Article 74) is also a matter for defence: aggravating/mitigating factors may be discussed.
• The proportionality of the penalty is reviewable: a disproportionate fine may be set aside.

9. Administrative and judicial review remedies

If the decision is adverse, the interested party has two —non-cumulative— routes of challenge.

9.1. Administrative route

Decisions of the Ministry that do not exhaust the administrative route are appealable on hierarchical appeal before the hierarchical superior, within one month (Article 122 LPAC). Those that exhaust it are appealable, optionally, on reconsideration before the same body (Article 124 LPAC), also within one month; if no resolution within one month, it is deemed silently dismissed. There is also the extraordinary review appeal in narrowly defined cases (Article 125 LPAC): factual error, new documents, prevarication.

9.2. Contentious-administrative route

Law 29/1998 (LJCA) regulates the contentious-administrative jurisdiction. Acts ending the administrative route are appealable before:

• Administrative Courts of First Instance (generally penalties below €60,000).
• Contentious-Administrative Chambers of the High Courts (higher amounts or by subject matter).

The deadline is two months from notice of the final act (Article 46 LJCA). The complaint may raise all grounds: full nullity, voidness due to procedural defect, lack of motivation, disproportion, breach of fundamental rights.

9.3. Provisional suspension in the contentious route

Article 130 LJCA allows requesting suspension of the act's execution if periculum in mora and fumus boni iuris concur. For large fines, suspension with bail is usually granted; for cancellation of registration, irreversible economic harm must be evidenced.

10. Procedural lapsing and prescription of the infringement

Two often-confused institutions with distinct effects.

10.1. Procedural lapsing (Article 25 LPAC)

The cessation of the procedure due to lack of decision in time. In the tourism sanctioning procedure, the maximum period is six months from notice of the initiation decision. After it without a notified express decision, the procedure lapses and must be filed. Lapsing does not prevent initiating a new procedure if the infringement has not yet prescribed.

10.2. Prescription of the infringement (Article 30 LRJSP and Article 79 Law 13/2011)

Prescription extinguishes the power to sanction. In Andalusian tourism matters:

• Minor infringements: 1 year.
• Serious infringements: 2 years.
• Very serious infringements: 3 years.

The count starts the day after the commission (or after cessation if continuous). It is interrupted by notifying the interested party of the initiation of the procedure (not by mere opening). The lapse of the procedure does not interrupt prescription: if the procedure lapsed and the prescription period expired, no sanction is possible.

10.3. Prescription of the penalty

Once imposed and final, the penalty prescribes in analogous periods from the day after it becomes final (Article 30.3 LRJSP). In practice: the sanctioned party may be relieved if the Administration does not enforce in time.

11. Mistakes you MUST NOT make

A review of the most common mistakes we see daily:

1. Refusing entry outright. Generates obstruction and, where appropriate, expedited judicial warrant. If grounded, do it reasoned and in writing; if not, cooperate.
2. Signing «in conformity» without reading. Limits subsequent defence. Read, note disagreements, sign «not in conformity» if in doubt.
3. Producing documentation that was not requested. Provide only what was requested and, if you need to think, ask for a time limit (Article 73 LPAC).
4. Talking too much. The right not to self-incriminate applies. Stick to what is needed.
5. Not requesting a copy of the record. It is your right. Without a copy, your later defence is blind.
6. Forgetting allegation deadlines. Ten days pass quickly. Confirm the date of notice.
7. Not proposing evidence in initial allegations. The allegations phase is the best moment to propose witness and expert evidence; later, it is harder.
8. Accepting voluntary payment without advice. The discount is attractive, but implies waiver of appeal. Only convenient when facts and classification are indisputable.
9. Missing the appeal deadlines. Without timely administrative appeal, the route is lost and, save full nullity, also the contentious one.
10. Not reviewing lapsing and prescription. The first line of defence: two periods that may topple the whole file.

12. Official sources

13. Frequently asked questions

Can the inspection enter without judicial warrant?

Without the holder's consent —or the occupant's, if used as residence— a judicial warrant is required (Article 18.2 Constitution, Article 100 LPAC, Article 8.6 LJCA). A vacant VUT purely for tourist use has a more flexible regime than habitual residence.

Must I sign the record?

The signature equates to receipt of the record, not to its acceptance. You may sign noting «not in conformity» or your allegations. Refusing to sign does not invalidate the record; the refusal is simply noted.

May I produce documentation afterwards?

Yes. Article 76 LPAC allows allegations and submission of documents at any time before the hearing stage. It is advisable to make use of the allegation phase (10 days from the initiation decision).

Can the Administration sanction the same fact multiple times?

No, the non bis in idem principle applies (Article 31 LRJSP). But distinct facts —though close in time— may give rise to separate penalties. Concurrence with civil or criminal liability is admissible if different legal interests are protected.

Is it convenient to acknowledge responsibility to reduce the fine?

It depends. If the facts are indisputable and the classification is correct, the 40 % discount may be interesting. If there are doubts on facts, classification or proportionality, defend administratively and, if needed, contentious-administratively.

May I appeal only the precautionary measure, without waiting?

Yes. Precautionary measures are qualified procedural acts and may be challenged autonomously: hierarchical or reconsideration appeal and, eventually, contentious-administrative proceedings with request for judicial suspension (Article 130 LJCA).

What happens if the procedure exceeds six months?

It lapses and must be filed (Article 25 LPAC and Article 85 Law 13/2011). Lapsing does not prevent a new procedure if the infringement has not prescribed (1/2/3 years).

Is cancellation of registration automatic?

No. It requires a procedure with prior hearing (Article 9.2 of Decree 28/2016 and Articles 75 and 82 LPAC). It only applies in narrowly defined situations: material inaccuracy or falsehood, lack of effective service, absence of required statements or authorisations.

Can the inspection use Airbnb/Booking screenshots as evidence?

Yes, they are admissible. Date of capture, identity of the listing holder and matching with the inspected VUT must be verified. If doubts exist, challenge the chain of custody and propose expert evidence on authenticity.

What if the inspection arrives while guests are staying?

Access requires the guest's consent, not the holder's. Without consent, judicial warrant. The holder may ask the inspector to return at a time that does not disturb the stay; the inspector will weigh urgency and proportionality. It is advisable to inform the guest and, if necessary, contact your lawyer.