A victim of the Can Cantó gas explosion in Ibiza has spoken publicly about the incident for the first time, claiming that the worker who carried out gas-related work at the building was not authorised to handle the installation and that his family has taken legal action against the worker, the company responsible for the works and the Balearic Housing Institute, IBAVI.

The explosion occurred on April 21, 2026, in a public housing building in the Can Cantó area of Ibiza Town and left four people seriously injured. A subsequent Police National investigation concluded that the blast was linked to an accumulation of gas following incorrect handling of the installation during works to replace gas appliances with electrical systems. The worker involved was arrested and later released with charges while the judicial investigation continued.

Five months after the explosion, one of the victims, who has requested anonymity, has now given an account of what the family says happened before the blast.

Victim Claims Worker Admitted He Did Not Know How to Handle Gas

According to the victim's account, an operative came to the apartments as part of renovation works involving the replacement of gas appliances with electric hobs.

The victim claims the worker was an electrician rather than an authorised gas installer and says the worker himself allegedly acknowledged that he did not know how to work on gas installations.

According to the account given to La Voz de Ibiza, the worker nevertheless returned the following day and carried out work on the gas system.

The victim alleges that the gas connection was not properly sealed after the existing appliance was removed.

These are allegations made by the victim and have not been established by a court as proven facts.

Family Says Three Homes May Have Been Left With Gas Leaks

The victim also makes a broader allegation about the work.

According to his account, the affected family believes the same operative may have left gas leaks in three different homes before the explosion occurred.

The claim is significant because it would suggest that the problem was potentially not limited to the apartment where the explosion ultimately took place.

However, the available reporting does not establish independently that three properties were left with gas leaks.

The judicial investigation will be responsible for determining what work was carried out, which properties were affected and whether any failures in the gas installation contributed to the explosion.

The Explosion Was Linked to Gas Accumulation

The police investigation into the April incident concluded that the explosion resulted from an accumulation of gas in the lower part of the kitchen of one of the affected homes.

Investigators said the gas installation should have been sealed following the installation of electrical systems but that the work had allegedly been carried out incorrectly.

That finding provides an important link between the renovation work and the eventual explosion, although legal responsibility has not yet been definitively established.

Four People Were Injured

The explosion caused injuries to four people.

Three suffered serious injuries, while two women were initially transferred to the specialist burns unit at La Fe Hospital in Valencia. Another injured person required intensive medical care in Ibiza.

The incident also forced around 70 residents to leave the building following the blast.

The scale of the damage meant that some residents remained displaced for months while repair and reconstruction work was carried out.

Worker Was Arrested and Released With Charges

The Police National arrested the operative identified in the investigation as the alleged person responsible for the gas-related work.

Police said he was suspected of offences involving serious negligence resulting in injuries and property damage.

The investigation concluded that he was not authorised to work as a gas installer and that the gas accumulation was connected to inadequate handling of the installation.

He was subsequently released with charges pending the judicial process.

Being charged does not amount to a conviction, and the final responsibility for the incident remains for the courts to determine.

The Contractor Is Also Facing Scrutiny

The dispute extends beyond the individual worker.

The renovation project at Can Cantó had been awarded to Construcciones Uxcar 97 SL as part of an energy-efficiency rehabilitation programme.

After the worker's arrest, the Balearic Government said the operative had been contracted by the construction company responsible for the works.

The company has previously declined to provide detailed answers about the circumstances surrounding the hiring of the operative and the verification of his qualifications.

The victim's family now says its legal action also targets the company.

IBAVI Is Also Named in the Family's Complaint

The family says it has extended its action to IBAVI, the public institution responsible for the housing development.

The victim argues that responsibility should not be restricted to the person who physically carried out the work.

The question of institutional and contractual responsibility remains unresolved.

The Balearic Government previously said its legal services were preparing a claim against the contractor and that it intended to seek responsibility through the relevant judicial process.

Government Faces Questions Over the Cost of the Damage

The case also raises questions about who will ultimately pay for the extensive repairs and associated costs.

In a separate report published on September 8, the Balearic Housing Ministry confirmed that the two homes most seriously affected could be reoccupied during September.

However, the government declined to provide details on the status of its legal action against Uxcar or the final cost borne by IBAVI for repairs and temporary accommodation.

Families affected by the explosion had spent months in temporary accommodation provided by Ibiza Town Hall and funded by IBAVI.

Two Homes Were Still Awaiting Completion

The latest information from the Housing Ministry indicates that the reconstruction of the two most severely damaged homes is now almost complete.

The remaining work includes final interior finishes, painting, kitchen installation and electrical fittings.

The government said the homes could become habitable during September.

The victim who has now spoken publicly, however, says the family had received a different timeframe from IBAVI and believed the return could extend into October.

That difference illustrates the uncertainty that has continued for affected residents even after the physical repairs entered their final stage.

Families Have Spent Months Away From Home

The impact of the explosion went far beyond the initial injuries.

Residents of the building faced prolonged disruption while repairs, inspections and replacement of damaged infrastructure were carried out.

The less seriously affected homes also lost essential services in the immediate aftermath.

The government has said that new electric water heaters and hobs were installed in 17 properties that were not directly damaged but had suffered interruptions to their services.

Temporary support was also provided to residents while work continued.

The Renovation Project Was Intended to Improve Energy Efficiency

The original works were not designed around gas infrastructure.

The project was an energy-efficiency rehabilitation programme intended to replace gas-powered systems with electrical alternatives.

That makes the alleged failure particularly significant: the explosion occurred during a project that was intended to modernise the building and remove its dependence on gas appliances.

The police investigation concluded that incorrect handling of the existing gas installation during this transition was connected to the accumulation that caused the explosion.

The Victim Wants Responsibility Established

Five months later, the affected family says it wants answers over how the work was organised and supervised.

The victim argues that the operative should never have been allowed to manipulate the gas installation without the necessary authorisation.

The family also wants responsibility examined at the level of the contractor and the public body overseeing the housing development.

Those questions will ultimately have to be resolved through the judicial process and any associated civil or administrative proceedings.

Investigation Is Still Open

The Can Cantó case has not reached its legal conclusion.

The operative has been arrested and released with charges, but there has been no conviction.

The family says it has not yet been called to testify before the judge and does not know when the judicial proceedings will advance.

The investigation will therefore need to establish the precise sequence of events, the responsibilities of those involved and whether any additional parties could face consequences.

A Case Still Carrying Major Human Consequences

The April explosion has already had lasting consequences for the residents of Can Cantó.

Four people suffered injuries, several homes were badly damaged and families were forced into temporary accommodation while reconstruction continued.

Now, as the final two damaged homes approach reopening, the legal questions remain unresolved.

The victim's decision to speak publicly adds another perspective to the case, but it does not replace the judicial investigation.

Five Months Later, the Central Questions Remain

The latest testimony puts renewed attention on several unresolved questions.

Who authorised the operative to work on the gas installation?

Were the necessary qualifications and safety checks verified?

Were other apartments left with gas leaks?

Did failures in the supervision of the works contribute to the explosion?

And who should ultimately bear responsibility for the resulting damage?

The police investigation has already established that the explosion involved a dangerous accumulation of gas associated with incorrect handling of the installation. But determining legal responsibility is a separate matter.

For the families affected, the next chapter will be decided not by the public debate surrounding the case, but by the evidence presented through the judicial process.