Your tenant has handed back the keys to your Paris studio and flown home. The walls are marked, the oven is encrusted, two months of rent never arrived, and you are holding a security deposit that covers barely half of it. What you do in the next eight weeks decides whether you keep that money lawfully or end up paying a surcharge on top of returning it. French law gives foreign landlords powerful tools to deduct unpaid rent and genuine damage from the dépôt de garantie (security deposit) — but every euro kept must be documented, compared and justified, and the clock runs against you, not the tenant. This guide walks through the procedure exactly as French judges examine it: the exit inspection, the evidence file, the deadlines, and the disputes that most often destroy an otherwise legitimate deduction.

I. You may only keep what your file proves

French deposit litigation is not decided by who suffered the most damage. It is decided by paperwork. The landlord who produces two comparable inventories, dated photographs, quotes or invoices and proof of payment almost always wins; the landlord who produces a single lump-sum repair bill almost always loses. Everything below follows from that single reality.

A. Two inventories, seven days and one shared bill: getting the exit inspection right

The entire deduction stands or falls on the comparison between the état des lieux d’entrée (check-in inventory) and the état des lieux de sortie (check-out inventory). The official service-public guidance states the rule plainly: to deduct anything, the landlord must rely on the entry and exit inventories and justify every sum withheld with a quote or invoice, an unanswered formal claim for unpaid rent, or equivalent proof. No comparison, no deduction. That page, verified in June 2026 and available in English on service-public.gouv.fr, is the baseline every judge starts from, and foreign landlords should read it before touching the deposit.

The check-out inventory must be contradictoire (drawn up jointly), with both sides present or properly summoned. When the tenant refuses to attend or cannot be reached, the landlord must not inspect alone and write up findings single-handedly. The lawful route is to call in a commissaire de justice (court enforcement officer, formerly known as a bailiff), who summons both parties and draws up the report. The cost is split equally between landlord and tenant — but only on one strict condition. In a published decision of 26 October 2023 (No. 22-20.183), available at the Court of Cassation, the Third Civil Chamber held that « lorsque les parties n’ont pas été convoquées par lettre recommandée avec demande d’avis de réception adressée au moins sept jours à l’avance, celle qui a pris l’initiative de faire établir l’état des lieux par un huissier de justice ne peut obtenir le remboursement de la moitié de son coût », meaning that without a registered summons sent at least seven days ahead, the party who hired the officer cannot recover half the fee. For a landlord managing from London, New York or Dubai, the practical lesson is to send that registered letter early, keep the receipt, and never let an agent skip the formality.

Two attendance scenarios deserve attention because they trap absent landlords. If the tenant simply does not show up at the appointment set by the enforcement officer, the landlord must apply to the protection-litigation judge of the court where the dwelling sits, who records the refusal and appoints an officer to recover the keys. If instead the landlord or the agency fails to attend, the tenant may return the keys by registered letter — and with no exit inventory, the tenant is deemed to have restored the dwelling in good condition. An owner who lives abroad and delegates nothing in writing is the classic victim of this second scenario: the keys arrive by post, there is no usable inspection, and the deposit must go back nearly in full.

The mirror situation — no check-in inventory at all — is governed by a presumption that actually helps landlords, provided they understand it. Article 1731 of the Civil Code provides that « S’il n’a pas été fait d’état des lieux, le preneur est présumé les avoir reçus en bon état de réparations locatives, et doit les rendre tels, sauf la preuve contraire », which means that without an entry inventory the tenant is deemed to have received the premises in good tenant-repair condition and must return them as such unless he proves otherwise. In a 16 March 1988 decision (No. 86-17.451), available at the Court of Cassation, the Third Civil Chamber quashed a judgment that had dismissed a landlord’s repair claim and applied a wear-and-tear discount merely because the flat was eight years old when let, while noting the absence of any jointly drawn-up entry inventory. Age alone proves nothing; the presumption fills the gap. But landlords should not celebrate too fast: the same line of cases shows that the presumption covers only tenant-repair condition, and the landlord must still prove that the damage itself exists and falls on the tenant, as the discussion of evidence below explains.

One vivid illustration comes from the same 2023 published decision: the landlord tried to charge departing tenants for a cluttered cellar, yet the entry inventory mentioned no cellar at all, no cellar key had ever been handed over, and witness statements showed the cellars in the building were unusable, unassigned and used as dumping space by third parties. The court approved the finding that the tenants had never occupied the cellar and could not answer for its state. The message for foreign owners is concrete: every room, annexe, parking space and set of keys must appear in the entry inventory, or it effectively does not exist for deduction purposes.

B. Every euro kept must be invoiced, photographed and compared

Once the two inventories exist, the landlord may deduct only two categories of sums: amounts the tenant still owes (unpaid rent, charges, late fees provided for in the lease) and amounts the landlord might have to pay in the tenant’s place, in both cases only if duly justified. A round figure, a penalty invented for the occasion, or tomorrow’s planned renovation cannot be charged to the deposit. The deposit secures the tenant’s obligations, not the landlord’s improvement projects.

Justification means a coherent bundle, not a single document. Judges expect the comparative inventories first, then dated evidence tied to each item: detailed quotes or invoices from tradesmen, proof that the invoice was actually paid, dated photographs showing the damage at exit, and for unpaid rent, the unanswered formal claim previously sent to the tenant. Photographs taken at entry matter as much as those taken at exit, because they close the argument that the damage predated the tenancy. Foreign landlords should instruct their agent to photograph systematically at both ends and to store the files with their dates; screenshots of undated pictures argued over three years later carry little weight.

The quality of the paperwork decides close cases, as a 16 January 1991 decision (No. 89-17.294), available at the Court of Cassation, demonstrates. The exit inventory described everything as in good condition subject to normal wear, while the landlord produced a separate document listing repairs charged to the outgoing tenant. The trial court found that document had been drawn up without invoices and without any discount for wear and tear, contradicting the signed inventory, and the Court of Cassation approved the conclusion that the tenant’s supposed commitment could have no effect, noting the paper « avait été établi sans facture et sans abattement éventuel pour vétusté », that is, drawn up with no invoice and no allowance for age-related wear. A landlord who wants to charge repainting after a nine-year tenancy at full new-paint price is making exactly this mistake: without invoices and without a grille de vétusté (contractual wear-and-tear scale) or at least a reasoned allowance for ageing, the claim collapses.

The line between chargeable damage and non-chargeable ageing is drawn by Article 1732 of the Civil Code, which provides that « Il répond des dégradations ou des pertes qui arrivent pendant sa jouissance, à moins qu’il ne prouve qu’elles ont eu lieu sans sa faute », meaning the tenant answers for deterioration occurring during his occupation unless he proves it happened through no fault of his own. Wear from normal use, the ageing of materials and latent defects therefore stay with the owner. A ten-year-old carpet worn thin in the walkways, faded paint after a long tenancy, a fifteen-year-old water heater that finally fails: none of these is tenant damage, however disappointing they look at the exit inspection. Conversely, cigarette burns, a door torn off its hinges, grease-saturated kitchen walls after two years or a garden left to run wild are degradations, and the tenant answers for them subject to the evidence rules above.

Many professional landlords now attach a wear-and-tear scale to the lease, setting a lifespan for paintwork, floor coverings and equipment and a yearly discount rate. Applied transparently and signed by both sides, such a scale converts bitter arguments into arithmetic and is generally well received by judges. Without one, the landlord must still apply a reasoned allowance and explain it line by line; charging a seven-year-old carpet at replacement value invites the judge to throw out the whole line, and sometimes to doubt the rest of the file.

One final evidence point is often overlooked by owners who recover a flat in poor condition: securing it. In an 25 October 2018 decision (No. 16-17.172), available at the Court of Cassation, the Third Civil Chamber, ruling expressly « Vu les articles 1731 et 1732 du code civil », quashed an appeal judgment that had rejected a landlord’s restoration claim without investigating, as requested, whether the tenant had abandoned the premises without securing them before being evicted. A tenant who walks away leaving the flat open, the water running or the alarm off may answer for the aggravated consequences, but the landlord must raise the point, prove the abandonment and document the resulting loss. Photographs of the state in which the flat was found, the locksmith’s invoice and the dated correspondence with the tenant form that proof.

II. The traps that turn a justified deduction into a penalty

Holding back money for real damage is only half the exercise. The other half is procedure and timing, and this is where foreign landlords most often lose. French deposit law is built to punish delay and sloppiness automatically, even when the underlying deduction was perfectly legitimate.

A. The ten percent monthly surcharge and the two-month clock you cannot pause

The deadlines run from the day the tenant returns the keys, in person or by registered letter. If the exit inventory matches the entry inventory, the balance must be returned within one month. In every other case — damage found, cleaning missing, any deduction at all — the landlord has two months. These are calendar months, and the starting point is the key handover, not the date the landlord finally gets around to reading the agent’s report. An owner who learns in December that the tenant left in October has already lost a month.

Miss the deadline and the sanction is mechanical: the balance still owed to the tenant is increased by ten percent of the monthly rent excluding charges for each month of delay begun, automatically, without any formal notice from the tenant. In a 12 February 2026 decision (No. 24-21.258), available at the Court of Cassation, the Third Civil Chamber recalled that « la majoration court de plein droit à l’issue du délai de deux mois suivant la remise des clés », the surcharge runs as of right once the two months after key handover expire. Landlords sometimes discover this arithmetic only at the hearing, where six or ten months of delay at ten percent of the rent can exceed the deduction they were defending.

The same 2026 decision carries a warning about how the refund itself must be proved. The landlord claimed to have posted a reimbursement cheque before the deadline and produced the cheque stub; the tenant denied ever receiving it and the cheque was never cashed. The Court of Cassation quashed the judgment for accepting the stub, holding that without proof that the tenant had actually received the cheque, which he disputed, no timely restitution was established. Article 1353 of the Civil Code states the underlying principle: « Celui qui réclame l’exécution d’une obligation doit la prouver. Réciproquement, celui qui se prétend libéré doit justifier le paiement ou le fait qui a produit l’extinction de son obligation », so whoever claims to be discharged must prove payment. A cheque stub, an unrecorded bank transfer or cash handed over without receipt proves nothing. Foreign landlords should pay by traceable transfer to the tenant’s declared account, keep the bank confirmation, and make sure the lease file contains the tenant’s forwarding address — noting that the surcharge does not apply where the delay is caused by the tenant’s failure to communicate a new address.

Collective buildings add a special mechanism that is frequently confused with the deposit itself. Where the dwelling sits in a copropriété (co-ownership) block, the landlord may keep a provision of up to twenty percent of the deposit until the building’s annual accounts are approved, then settle the final balance within one month of that approval. But that provision concerns service charges, not damage, and it follows its own timetable. In a 31 May 2018 decision (No. 17-18.069), available at the Court of Cassation, the Third Civil Chamber recalled that « le dépôt de garantie est prévu pour garantir l’exécution de ses obligations locatives par le locataire », the deposit exists to secure performance of the tenant’s lease obligations, and quashed a judgment that had applied the ten percent late penalty to a balance which, on the court’s own findings, arose from the charge reconciliation rather than from the deposit. The practical rule: never mix the two envelopes. Return or account for the deposit within its own deadline, run the charge provision separately with supporting statements, and do not apply the tenant’s charge credit to plug a hole in the damage file.

One more timing point favours careful landlords. When the tenant owes arrears or damage compensation established by the court, the deposit is set off against those awards rather than refunded with a penalty on top. In the 2023 published decision already cited, the tenants had paid a 660 euro deposit but were ordered to pay 301.73 euros of rent arrears and 732.45 euros for tenant damage; the Court of Cassation, ruling on the merits without remand, held that the deposit had to be imputed against those awards and rejected both the restitution claim and the late surcharge. A landlord who has sued in time and obtained an award does not pay a penalty for not refunding a deposit that the tenant’s own debt has already absorbed — provided the set-off is actually established and documented, not merely asserted in correspondence.

B. From the demand letter to the judge: closing the file from Paris or from abroad

When the tenant disputes the deductions — and organised tenants increasingly do, often with the help of a consumer association — the dispute follows a predictable ladder, and the landlord’s file is examined afresh at every rung. The first rung is the tenant’s formal demand, usually a registered letter challenging the statement and requesting the balance plus the ten percent surcharge. A landlord who receives one should not answer with indignation but with documents: the two inventories side by side, the dated photographs, the quotes and paid invoices, the unanswered rent claims. Many disputes die at this stage when the file is complete, and many escalate when the answer is a bare assertion that the flat was left in a disgraceful state.

The second rung is conciliation before the commission départementale de conciliation (departmental conciliation board for residential leases), free and relatively fast, which issues an opinion that often frames the rest of the dispute. The third rung is the juge des contentieux de la protection (specialist judge for residential lease and consumer matters) of the court where the dwelling is located — for a Paris flat, the judicial court of Paris — who decides with full power to order restitution, validate deductions, or award the surcharge. Throughout, the burden of proof stays where Article 1353 puts it: the tenant proves he paid what he owed and returned the keys on time; the landlord proves the damage, its amount and its timely justification. Assertions without exhibits lose on both sides, which is why the inventory photographs and the proof of payment or receipt discussed above matter more than any argument about fairness.

Distance changes logistics, not law. A landlord living abroad can act through a written mandate given to the managing agent, a family member or a lawyer, can send and receive registered letters electronically where the other side accepts them, and can appear through counsel without travelling for modest claims. What distance does not excuse is silence: unanswered letters from the tenant or the conciliation board are read as an absence of justification, and limitation periods continue to run whether the owner reads his mail or not. Foreign owners should therefore set up, before the tenancy ends, a single channel — agent, inbox, forwarding address — through which every deposit-related letter is received, filed and answered within days. For owners who want structured assistance with that process in the capital, our Paris real estate law practice handles deposit disputes for non-resident landlords, from the exit inspection to the hearing.

Paris and the Île-de-France add a few practical specifics worth knowing. Rents and tradesmen’s rates are higher than the national average, so invoices must be credible for the local market — a 90 euro full-repaint quote for a 40 square metre flat looks as suspicious as a 9,000 euro one, and judges in the capital see enough files to spot both. The Paris conciliation board is busy, so filing early preserves momentum; the capital’s housing advice agency network provides free general information sessions that many foreign owners find useful before deciding whether to concede or fight. None of this changes the substantive rules, but it changes the rhythm: in Paris, files move fast, expectations are professional, and a landlord whose file is ready on the day the keys come back holds a genuine advantage.

Conclusion

A French security deposit is neither a bonus for the landlord nor pocket money the tenant recovers automatically. It is a secured sum released on evidence, within one or two months of the key handover, under a ten percent monthly surcharge that runs on its own. The foreign landlord who inspects jointly or through a properly summoned enforcement officer, photographs both inventories, justifies every deduction with dated quotes, invoices and proof of payment, allows for genuine wear and tear, keeps the charge provision separate from the damage file, and pays the balance by traceable transfer keeps what he is owed and fears no judge. The one who deducts from memory, answers late and proves payment with a cheque stub pays the surcharge instead. Build the file as if it will be read in court, because one day it may be.