Every September, the same envelope lands in the mailboxes of your Paris building: the annual statement of service charges. For one foreign owner of a two-bedroom flat in the 17th arrondissement, the 2025 statement ended with a demand for 2,180 euros on top of the monthly advances already paid. The tenant refused to pay. The heating bills looked inflated, the caretaker’s salary seemed to fund a full-time concierge for thirty flats, and the waste collection tax appeared twice, once in the charges and once somewhere in the rent. The owner, living abroad, faced the classic dilemma: write the sum off, or chase it through a legal system whose vocabulary he did not speak.

This guide is written for that owner. Under French residential lease law, a landlord may pass only certain charges on to the tenant, only through a strict yearly ritual, and only with written proof at every step. Miss the ritual and even a perfectly legitimate euro becomes unrecoverable. Follow it, and the law gives you a complete enforcement chain, from the formal demand to the protection litigation judge, the security deposit set-off, and the guarantor. The rules below rest on the statutes in force on 3 October 2026 and on Cour de cassation decisions obtained and read for this article, including three rulings from 2026. Where a Paris or Ile-de-France particularity exists, it is flagged in place. Readers who want the tenant’s mirror view of the same relationship will find it in the companion tenant-rights guide for foreign renters and landlords in France.

I. What French Law Lets You Pass On to the Tenant, and What Stays With You

The starting point surprises most foreign landlords: nothing is recoverable unless the statute says so. Article 23 of the Act of 6 July 1989 states the principle that recoverable charges, as sums accessory to the main rent, are exigible only against justification and in exchange for defined counterparts ([Article 23 of the Act of 6 July 1989](https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/article_lc/LEGIARTI000041587263)). Three words carry the whole regime. Accessory means the charges follow the rent and can never exceed what the law authorises. Justification means no receipt, no payment: every euro must be backed by a bill. And counterparts means the tenant pays only for three families of expense: services linked to the use of the rented property, routine maintenance and minor repairs of the common parts, and taxes that correspond to services the tenant uses directly. Everything else stays with the owner, and the closed list of what passes through is fixed by Decree No. 87-713 of 26 August 1987, verified in force on 3 October 2026 ([Decree No. 87-713, official text](https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/id/JORFTEXT000000333863)).

A. The Closed List: Lifts, Heating, the Caretaker and the Waste Tax

The decree walks through the building section by section, and each section reads like an inventory of daily life: lifts and goods lifts, cold water, collective heating and hot water production, staircases and landings, green spaces and playgrounds, hygiene, ventilation and intercoms, and finally taxes and fees. Two entries matter most in practice. Section VIII on taxes allows the landlord to recover the household waste collection tax or fee and the street-sweeping tax, which answers the double-billing suspicion in our opening example: the taxe d’enlèvement des ordures ménagères (household waste collection tax) is genuinely passed on to the tenant, but it must appear once, in the itemised statement, not hidden inside the rent. Conversely, the property tax strictly so called, the taxe foncière (annual property tax paid by owners), is nowhere on the closed list, so it stays with the owner in every residential lease. A clause that shifted it to the tenant would fail at the first judicial reading.

The caretaker line deserves special attention because it is where Paris bills explode. The decree allows the caretaker’s wages and related charges at 75 percent where the gardien (resident caretaker) performs both the upkeep of the common parts and the removal of waste, and at only 40 percent where the contract assigns just one of the two tasks, with management overhead recoverable at 10 percent. In Haussmann buildings with a full-time lodge caretaker, the difference between the two rates routinely decides disputes worth several thousand euros, and the tenant is entitled to see the caretaker’s employment contract to check which rate applies. Lift maintenance contracts follow the same logic: Article 23 expressly mentions maintenance contracts for lifts meeting the statutory safety conditions, covering minimum periodic operations, small worn parts, freeing trapped passengers and breakdown recovery, which means a modernisation or full replacement of the lift installation, unlike its servicing, remains the owner’s burden. The dividing line throughout is the same: routine servicing and minor repairs pass through, while major works on the structure stay with the owner.

Two contractual choices frame the whole system. Most leases use monthly provisions (advance payments on account) followed by a yearly reconciliation, which is the ritual described in the next section. The alternative is a fixed forfait (flat-rate charges package): the Act allows charges to be recovered as a flat sum paid with the rent, whose amount and payment schedule are set in the lease. In English, a flat-rate package defined in the lease replaces the reconciliation entirely, with no top-up and no refund. Foreign landlords who choose the flat rate buy simplicity at the price of accuracy, and the amount must still be realistic when the lease is signed. Finally, the Act polices abusive clauses directly. Article 4 deems unwritten any clause letting the landlord collect fines or penalties for breaches of the lease or the building rules, and any clause charging the tenant reminder or receipt-postage costs on top of court costs ([Article 4 of the Act of 6 July 1989](https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/article_lc/LEGIARTI000028806566)). A lease that adds a 40-euro fee per reminder letter, a common foreign practice, is unenforceable in France.

B. The Yearly Ritual That Decides Everything: Provisions, Reconciliation and the Itemised Statement

Provisions are not a blank cheque. Article 23 requires them to be justified by the results recorded at the previous reconciliation and, where the building is under co-ownership rules or the landlord is a legal entity, by the provisional budget. In practice, this means the monthly advance must track reality: a landlord who keeps advances artificially low to advertise a cheap rent, then presents a crushing year-end balance, hands the tenant both an argument and a statutory remedy. The centrepiece is the régularisation annuelle (annual reconciliation). At least one month before it, the landlord must send the tenant the décompte (itemised statement) broken down by nature of charge, showing in collective buildings how the costs are apportioned between tenants and, where relevant, an information note on how collective heating and hot water charges are computed and on the flat’s individual consumption. For six months after the statement is sent, the supporting documents must be kept available to tenants under normal conditions, and since 2015 the landlord must also send a summary of the flat’s charges electronically or by post whenever the tenant asks. The official Service-Public guidance on tenant charges confirms each of these steps with the same deadlines.

Two consequences follow that foreign owners often discover too late. First, delay has a price fixed by statute: where the reconciliation has not been performed before the end of the calendar year following the year the charges fell due, the tenant who asks for it pays the balance in twelfths, spreading arrears that may be two years old over twelve monthly instalments. The landlord loses the lump sum and gains a bookkeeping burden. Second, the mirror action obeys the same clock. In a widely applied 2018 ruling, the Third Civil Chamber held that a tenant’s claim for repayment of overpaid charges runs for three years from the reconciliation, because that day alone lets the tenant identify an overpayment: “ce jour est celui de la régularisation des charges, qui seule permet au preneur de déterminer l’existence d’un indu, et non celui du versement de la provision” In English, time runs from the reconciliation, which alone reveals any overpayment, not from the payment of the advances (Cass., 3rd civ., 8 March 2018, No. 17-11.985). Landlords should read this symmetrically: keep every reconciliation, because a tenant can reopen three years of overpayments, and a missing statement is treated as an admission that nothing was justified. Practical discipline is simple. Calendar the reconciliation for the first quarter, send the itemised statement by a traceable channel at least a month before, file the invoices for six months, and answer document requests in writing. Most disputes die at this stage when the file is complete.

II. Making the Tenant Pay: Deadlines, Proof and the Judge

When the statement is correct and the tenant still refuses to pay, the landlord enters a procedure where order matters more than force. French law forbids self-help absolutely: changing the locks, cutting off heating or hot water, or removing the tenant’s belongings exposes the owner to criminal liability and damages, however large the arrears. The lawful path has four stages, and each stage creates the evidence the next one needs.

A. From the Demand Letter to the Protection Judge: Conciliation, Proof and the Three-Year Clock

Begin with a written demand that states the exact periods, the nature of each charge and the supporting references, sent by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt. A formal mise en demeure (formal demand to pay) follows if the first letter fails, and from that point every procedural cost must stay with the landlord: as noted above, reminder fees cannot be shifted to the tenant. Before any court filing, check the amount. Article 750-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires, on pain of inadmissibility that the judge may raise of his own motion, that a claim for a sum not exceeding 5,000 euros first go through an attempt at conciliation by a court conciliator, mediation or a participatory procedure. In English, claims up to 5,000 euros must first attempt an amicable route, at the parties’ choice among conciliation, mediation or participatory procedure ([Article 750-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure](https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000047539064)). The free departmental conciliation commission for leases and the local conciliateur de justice (court-appointed conciliator) handle such cases every week, and in Paris their caseload on charge disputes is heavy enough that filing early protects the limitation clock. Skipping this step where it is mandatory gets the case thrown out, with costs.

The competent judge is the juge des contentieux de la protection (protection litigation judge) of the tenant’s domicile, sitting at the judicial court, which for a Paris flat means the Paris judicial court. The hearing turns on documents, and the burden rule is brutal in its simplicity. Article 1353 of the Civil Code provides: the burden rule that whoever claims performance of an obligation must prove it, as the Third Civil Chamber recalled when applying this rule to a landlord who could not prove receipt of his cheque ([Article 1353 of the Civil Code](https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000032042341)). A February 2026 ruling illustrates the standard unforgivingly: a landlord who had issued and posted a refund cheque could not stop the statutory late penalty, because he could not prove the tenant had received it, the court holding that the increase runs automatically once the two-month deadline expires ([Cass., 3rd civ., 12 February 2026, No. 24-21.258](https://www.courdecassation.fr/decision/698d7affcdc6046d47fec70b)). Apply the lesson upstream: prove sending of the statement, prove the invoices, prove receipt of the demand. Registered mail, bailiff service for decisive acts, and a complete chronological file win these cases.

Expect two defences and prepare for both. First, the tenant may ask the judge for time. Article 1343-5 of the Civil Code allows the court, considering the debtor’s situation and the creditor’s needs, to defer or spread payment over up to two years. In English, the judge may postpone or reschedule payment of sums owed within a two-year limit ([Article 1343-5 of the Civil Code](https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000032035267)). These délais de grâce (court-granted grace periods) suspend enforcement measures but not the debt, and a landlord who shows the tenant’s bad faith or substantial means obtains shorter schedules or none. Second, the tenant may stop paying rent altogether, invoking the landlord’s alleged failures. The exception of non-performance exists in French law, but Article 1219 of the Civil Code conditions it on a non-performance that is sufficiently serious. In English, a party may withhold its own performance only where the other’s failure is sufficiently serious ([Article 1219 of the Civil Code](https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000032041509)). A disputed heating apportionment almost never meets that threshold, and tenants who freeze the whole rent over a charges argument regularly lose, with interest and costs. Advise in writing against the freeze and keep claiming each charge separately.

Two structural points complete the picture. Unpaid charges can, unlike many other breaches, activate the lease’s automatic termination clause: Article 4 of the 1989 Act restricts permitted termination clauses to non-payment of rent, charges, deposit, insurance and peaceful enjoyment, which means a clause aimed at charges arrears is valid where a clause aimed at other grievances would be deemed unwritten. Use it carefully, because termination for a few hundred euros of disputed charges invites the judge to grant grace periods instead, and the winter and procedural protections then apply as in any eviction. Limitation is the second point, and it favours the diligent. Article 7-1 of the 1989 Act provides: “Le délai de prescription des actions dérivant d’un contrat de bail d’habitation étant spécifiquement fixé à trois ans par les dispositions de l’article 7-1 de la loi n° 89-462 du 6 juillet 1989” In English, the limitation period for residential lease actions is specifically set at three years by Article 7-1, to the exclusion of the two-year consumer-law period ([Article 7-1 of the Act of 6 July 1989](https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/article_lc/LEGIARTI000028777184)). The Cour de cassation has twice confirmed that the two-year consumer-law period does not displace this three-year rule, annulling in 2017 a judgment that had applied the consumer period to a professional landlord’s claim for repair costs (Cass., 3rd civ., 26 January 2017, No. 16-10.389), and holding in 2022 that the same three-year clock governs the professional guarantor suing the tenant by subrogation (Cass., 3rd civ., 11 May 2022, No. 20-23.335). The clock starts when the landlord knows the figures, which in charges matters means the reconciliation date, so late reconciliations shorten the useful enforcement window twice over. For owners managing from abroad, distance creates its own traps, and Paris adds specific ones: individual heat and water metering is spreading through Paris co-ownerships, the protection judge’s docket is crowded, and documentary rigour decides cases before they are pleaded, which is why owners abroad typically instruct [real estate counsel in Paris who follows the file locally](https://kohenavocats.fr/en/real-estate-law-attorneys-paris-75017/) from the first demand letter rather than after the summons arrives.

B. Getting the Money at the End: Deposit Set-Off, the Guarantor and the Sale of the Flat

Most charges disputes end not at a hearing but at the checkout, when the tenant leaves and the deposit is on the table. Article 22 of the 1989 Act caps the dépôt de garantie (security deposit) at one month’s rent in principal and organises its return with a precision that punishes improvisation ([Article 22 of the Act of 6 July 1989](https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/article_lc/LEGIARTI000028806696)). Where the checkout inspection matches the check-in inspection, the balance must be returned within one month of the handover of the keys; otherwise the deadline is two months. Deductions are allowed only for sums still owed to the landlord and sums the landlord could owe in the tenant’s place, and only where duly justified by documents. In collective buildings, the landlord may keep a provision of up to 20 percent of the deposit until the building’s annual accounts are approved, with the final reconciliation and the return of the balance within the month following that approval. Failure to return on time triggers an automatic increase of 10 percent of the monthly rent for each month of delay begun, unless the tenant never supplied a forwarding address.

Three recent rulings show how strictly courts apply this machinery. In September 2020, the Third Civil Chamber quashed a judgment that had ordered full return of the deposit without deducting repair costs it had itself awarded the landlord, recalling that the deposit is returned net of justified sums and deciding the case finally without remand (Cass., 3rd civ., 10 September 2020, No. 19-10.033). The message for landlords is encouraging but conditional: you may set justified charges arrears and repair costs against the deposit, but the justification must already be in the file, invoice by invoice. In February 2026, the same chamber held that the 10 percent increase runs automatically once the two-month period expires from the return of the keys: “la majoration court de plein droit à l’issue du délai de deux mois suivant la remise des clés.” In English, the increase accrues automatically when the two-month period after the handover of the keys ends (see Cass., 3rd civ., 12 February 2026, No. 24-21.258 above). Sending a cheque is not returning money; only proven receipt stops the meter. And in June 2026, the Court confirmed that a tenant who gave notice owes rent and charges through the whole notice period, with the handover of the keys and the checkout inspection proving only that the premises were vacated, never an implied waiver of the remaining rent: “lorsque le locataire a notifié le congé, il est redevable du loyer et des charges pendant tout le délai de préavis” In English, a tenant who serves notice remains liable for rent and charges for the entire notice period (Cass., 3rd civ., 4 June 2026, No. 25-13.387). The same ruling adds a procedural warning that cuts both ways: the judge may not award the 10 percent increase of his own motion where nobody claimed it, so landlords must expressly claim every head of damage, penalty included, in their written submissions.

Where the deposit does not cover the arrears, turn to the caution (personal guarantor) or the institutional guarantee without delay. The 2022 ruling cited above confirms that a professional guarantor who paid in the tenant’s place and sues by subrogation is subject to the same three-year limitation as the landlord’s own action, which gives the landlord time but also tells the guarantor’s lawyers exactly which defence to raise. In practice, declare the arrears to the guarantor or the insurer at the first missed payment, within the deadline stated in the guarantee contract, because late declaration is the standard ground for refusal of cover. Visale, bank guarantees and private insurers each impose their own notification windows, and a landlord living abroad who discovers the arrears six months late often discovers simultaneously that the cover has lapsed. Finally, foreign owners who sell a tenanted flat should know that the deposit follows the property, not the seller: on a sale for value or a gift, returning the deposit becomes the new owner’s duty, and any contrary agreement binds only the parties to the transfer. Adjust the sale price for deposits and pending reconciliations at the notaire’s office, and hand over the full charges file with the keys, because the buyer inherits both the money and the disputes.

Conclusion

A tenant’s refusal to pay service charges is never answered by pressure on the tenant; it is answered by paperwork about the charges. Work through the checklist in order. First, test every disputed euro against the closed list: services actually used, routine maintenance and minor repairs, and the waste tax yes, the property tax and major works no. Second, run the yearly ritual on time: provisions anchored in the previous results and the provisional budget, an itemised statement sent traceably at least a month before the reconciliation, invoices available for six months, and twelfths accepted gracefully where the statute imposes them. Third, enforce in sequence: a precise written demand, conciliation where the claim does not exceed 5,000 euros, then the protection litigation judge with a file that proves sending, content and receipt. Fourth, close the file at departure: deduct only justified sums from the deposit, return the balance within one month or two, claim the 10 percent increase expressly where it is due, and notify the guarantor before its deadline expires. Each step is modest; together they convert a 2,180-euro standoff into a recoverable claim. The landlords who lose these disputes are rarely those with the weakest charges. They are those with the thinnest files.