Estate agent dispute lawyer in Paris: review the mandate.

First send the agency a written complaint, identifying precisely the contract, the facts complained of and the documents or sums requested. Attach the relevant documents and keep proof of this step, rather than multiplying telephone exchanges that leave no trace. If you are a consumer, consumer mediation may then be considered under Articles L. 612-1 and L. 612-2 of the Consumer Code (Code de la consommation). The prior complaint is not enough on its own: the mediator's jurisdiction and the other admissibility conditions remain to be checked. A lawyer examines in parallel the agency's obligations and the applicable limitation period, in particular if funds are still being withheld or if a commission is claimed. The firm thus determines whether your estate agent dispute calls for a claim for payment, a challenge to fees or a liability action.

Filing a criminal complaint against an estate agency requires facts capable of amounting to a criminal offence, as distinct from a mere disagreement over performance of the contract. Funds entrusted and then misappropriated may, depending on the evidence gathered, amount to breach of trust as defined by Article 314-1 of the French Criminal Code (Code pénal). A delay in paying over rent is therefore not enough, on its own, to establish that offence: the sums collected, the use made of the funds and the explanations received must be examined. A disputed commission or a failure in the duty to advise may, for its part, be pursued through a civil action. The firm analyses the documents available before deciding how to proceed, without systematically equating a professional breach with a criminal offence. Keep the statements, the management accounts and any requests left unanswered; they also help prepare a claim for restitution or compensation.

For sales, Article 6 of the Hoguet Act regulates the sums claimed before a transaction has actually been concluded and recorded in writing. The mandate and the parties' commitment must be examined before determining whether the remuneration has become due. Articles 72 and 73 of the Decree of 20 July 1972 also set out the requirements for the prior mandate, the fees and the person liable for them. An invoice therefore does not, on its own, show that the commission is due in the situation in dispute. This remuneration must, however, be distinguished from a claim based on an exclusivity clause, a penalty clause or a fault attributed to the principal. The law also provides a particular regime where the principal acts in the course of professional activities. The firm examines each basis relied on before contesting the claim, comparing the clauses of the mandate with the circumstances in which the sale failed.

Article 78 of the Decree of 20 July 1972 provides, for the mandates concerned, a right to terminate once three months have passed since signature. This requires giving the other party at least fifteen days' notice, by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt. The text contains exceptions, in particular for certain sales of lots and certain transactions involving commercial premises: their application must be checked. The exclusivity clause or the penalty clause must also be express, very prominent and included in a mandate of which a copy was given to the principal. Before any termination, gather the complete contract, its date of signature and the evidence of the steps taken by the agency. The provisions on buyers introduced and on the effects of the mandate after it ends must be examined. A badly prepared termination may leave a disagreement over the commission or a contractual indemnity.

Liability requires identifying the information or check that was omitted, then establishing the consequences of that failing for the purchase. Where the buyer is not the agent's principal, Article 1240 of the Civil Code may found a tort liability action against the professional. The project communicated, the advertisement, the documents available and the perceptible characteristics of the property are essential elements of the analysis. A disappointing return does not, however, show on its own a failure in the duty to advise or a compensable loss. In a buy-to-let investment case, the court held: “They thus fail to substantiate a loss of opportunity that would be linked to the purchase of another, more profitable investment.” (our translation) (CA Paris, Pôle 5 chamber 10, 23 May 2022, No. 20/18370). The firm therefore distinguishes the risk inherent in the transaction from the consequences of insufficient information, without presuming that the professional guarantees the yield announced.

First distinguish the rent actually received by the agency from the sums the tenants have not paid, by reconciling the statements. Article 1993 of the Civil Code requires the agent to account for the management and for the sums received on behalf of the principal. Ask for detailed accounts, supporting documents for the deductions and payment of the balance due on the dates set by the contract. Bank statements and earlier reports make it possible to check whether fees or expenses explain a difference. The Lille judgment cited on this page distinguishes rent collected but not paid over, undue management fees and the consequences of defective recovery. These claims must not be confused, because their proof and their purpose differ. Depending on the professional's situation, the firm also examines the conditions for approaching the financial guarantor, without presuming that it will cover the loss.

Unpaid rent does not automatically make the manager liable for all the rent: its commitments and the steps it took must be examined. The mandate, the Visale file, the declarations made and the reason for refusal make it possible to identify any fault in the follow-up. In the case decided in Paris, the professional had neither taken out the insurance provided for in the mandate nor made effective use of the existing Visale guarantee. The court stated: “The company FLATLOOKER can only be ordered to compensate the losses causally linked to the faults committed.” (our translation) (TJ Paris, 5th chamber 1st section, 24 June 2025, No. 24/06464). The compensation was analysed as a loss of opportunity to benefit from the guarantee. The firm therefore checks the conditions applicable to the file concerned, without transposing a declaration period or an amount of cover to every situation.

A management mandate does not mean that the agency automatically guarantees the condition of the property when the tenant leaves. Damage attributed to the tenant must be distinguished from the consequences of a fault by the manager in carrying out its assignment. Inventories of condition, dated photographs, quotes and correspondence make it possible to establish the defects and their justified cost. The mandate then indicates which steps were entrusted to the agency, in particular for inventories of condition and the follow-up of claims. In the Paris judgment of 24 June 2025 cited on this page, the failure to take out the insurance promised also affected cover for tenant repairs. The court found a loss of opportunity, taking account of the guarantees provided for in the mandate. The firm therefore looks for the link between each expense claimed and the step omitted, without attributing all repairs indiscriminately to the professional.

The answer depends on the terms of the search mandate, the properties presented and the circumstances in which the purchase was finally concluded. Dealing directly with the seller after a viewing organised by the professional does not necessarily rule out any remuneration. The Court of Cassation nevertheless requires an inquiry into “whether the terms of the mandates did not limit in time” (our translation) the prohibition on dealing directly with the seller introduced (Cass. 3e civ., 11 September 2025, No. 23-17.579). This decision calls for reading the clauses that take effect after expiry, rather than inferring the commission from the introduction alone. The firm therefore compares the signed mandate, the viewing reports and the date of purchase. It also examines the remuneration terms and any faults alleged against the property finder before responding to the claim.

A client's liability action falls in principle under Article 2224 of the Civil Code: five years from the knowledge of the facts enabling action. The text refers to the day on which the right holder knew or should have known those facts, which calls for a precise analysis. Signature of the mandate is therefore not systematically the starting point to be used for every fault alleged. Dates of discovery, accounts received, refusals of guarantee and the agency's replies must be kept for this check. Other deadlines may arise from the contract, in particular for terminating an exclusivity or declaring an incident to a guarantee body. A simple reminder should not be regarded as automatically protecting the action against the limitation period. The firm checks separately the nature of each claim and the steps needed to preserve the client's rights.