Security deposit lawyer Paris: recover or withhold, with proof.

The time limit for return depends on whether the exit inventory of condition matches the entry inventory. Where the exit inventory is compliant, Article 22 of the Law of 6 July 1989 requires return within one month of the keys being handed over in person or sent by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt. Where the exit inventory shows differences from the entry inventory, the time limit is extended to two months. The time limit runs from the actual handover of the keys. In a multi-occupancy building, the landlord may keep an advance of no more than 20% of the deposit until the annual accounts of the co-owners' association are closed. Once the time limit has expired, the tenant may claim the statutory increase of 10% of the monthly rent for each monthly period begun late.

No. Article 22 of the Law of 6 July 1989 requires that sums deducted from the deposit be duly justified (our translation). The burden of proof lies with the landlord: they must produce verifiable documents allowing the judge to check that the sums deducted are real, attributable to the tenant and correctly quantified. In practice, this means producing the inventories of condition compared, genuine quotes and invoices for the works, accounting records for the charges, and dated photographs of the damage. A flat-rate deduction or a vague statement does not meet the legal requirement. The tenant may then apply to the protection litigation judge (juge des contentieux de la protection) for return of the deposit in full, plus the increase of 10% for each month of delay. The case law is clear and settled: the burden of proof is on the landlord, not the tenant.

There are three main steps. First, ask the landlord for a detailed statement of the deductions, with supporting documents. The request can be made by email and then by registered letter. Second, send the landlord a reasoned formal notice, identifying each disputed line, calculating the share that should be returned and quantifying the 10% increase for each month elapsed. The formal notice shows diligence. Third, if there is no satisfactory reply within a reasonable time, bring the matter before the protection litigation judge at the competent judicial court (tribunal judiciaire), in Paris for homes located in the capital. The case is brought by writ of summons. The judge will order the landlord to return the sum wrongly withheld, to pay the increase and, where applicable, the costs and the sum due under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code de procédure civile). Representation by a lawyer is not mandatory but is strongly advisable to gauge the amount and structure the evidence.

Article 22 of the Law of 6 July 1989 provides for an increase of 10% of the monthly rent, excluding charges, for each monthly period begun late. This increase is automatic: it requires neither prior formal notice nor proof of loss. It is calculated on the rent excluding charges, month by month, from the day after the statutory time limit of one or two months expires. The Court of Cassation has held that this increase cannot be combined with default interest at the statutory rate set by Article 1153, paragraph 3, of the Civil Code, in its version prior to that resulting from Order No. 2016-131 of 10 February 2016, and bears interest only from the judgment quantifying it (our translation) (Cass. 3e civ., 15 November 2018, No. 17-26.986, published in the Bulletin). The increase is not due where the delay results from the tenant's failure to give the landlord a new address.

An inventory of condition is not formally mandatory on pain of nullity of the lease, but its absence has an important consequence. Article 1731 of the Civil Code provides that if no inventory of condition has been drawn up, the tenant is presumed to have received the premises in good condition as regards tenant repairs, and must return them in that condition, unless proved otherwise (our translation). The presumption therefore operates in the tenant's favour: it is for the landlord to prove, by any means, that the damage occurred during the occupation. In practice, this proof is rarely convincing, and the landlord struggles to justify deductions. A prudent landlord always has a detailed entry inventory drawn up, agreed amicably by both parties, or failing that by a court bailiff. The case law holds that an inventory of condition is valid only if it is drawn up jointly by both parties or by a neutral third party, with the costs shared equally, in accordance with Article 3-2 of the Law of 6 July 1989.

There are three options depending on the stage of the dispute. First, refuse to sign the disputed exit inventory and insist on a court bailiff being used. Article 3-2 of the Law of 6 July 1989 provides that, failing agreement, the inventory of condition is drawn up by a court bailiff at the initiative of the more diligent party, with the costs shared equally, provided a summons is sent by registered letter at least seven days in advance. Second, if the inventory was drawn up unilaterally by the landlord, challenge the fact that it was not agreed by both parties. The Court of Cassation has held that an exit inventory of condition drawn up unilaterally by the landlord, without a court bailiff, and whose lack of adversarial process is due to the landlord's default, cannot prove damage attributable to the tenant (our translation) (Cass. 3e civ., 16 November 2023, No. 22-19.422, published in the Bulletin). Third, produce all useful evidence before the judge: photographs dated on the day of departure, witness statements, emails exchanged with the landlord. The defence requires a rigorous reading of the documents served and of the time limits.

The distinction is central and determines what can be charged to the tenant. Decree No. 2016-382 of 30 March 2016 defines fair wear and tear (vétusté) as the state of wear or deterioration resulting from time or from normal use of the materials and fittings of which the dwelling is made up (our translation). Damage, by contrast, results from abnormal use or from fault on the part of the tenant. Article 7 d) of the Law of 6 July 1989 expressly excludes fair wear and tear from the tenant's maintenance obligation. The Court of Cassation quashed a judgment of a court of appeal, for lack of legal basis, that had ordered tenants to pay for renovation works estimated by the landlords' insurer's expert, without explaining how those claims were to be set off against the security deposit and without answering the tenants' submissions that eleven years of occupation had caused wear and tear that could not be treated as damage (Cass. 3e civ., 11 May 2022, No. 20-19.985). In practice, where the lease contains a wear and tear scale, the contractual reduction is applied. Otherwise, the judge assesses the matter in equity, having regard to the length of occupation, the nature of the material and its theoretical lifespan.

No, unless strict conditions are met. The security deposit covers only the tenant's debts to the landlord, that is, rent, recoverable charges and tenant repairs. The tenant's personal bills to EDF, GDF, the water supplier or any energy supplier are debts owed to those third parties, not to the landlord. The landlord therefore cannot deduct them from the deposit. There is an exception where the landlord, under a contractual or legal obligation, itself pays a debt in place of the tenant: in that case, Article 22 provides that the landlord may deduct sums for which the landlord might be liable in place of the tenant, provided they are duly justified (our translation). The landlord must then produce the third party's invoices and proof of actual payment. Otherwise the deduction is unfair and the tenant can obtain its return with the increase.

The question is nuanced. A quote is only a forecast estimate, not proof of expenditure. A landlord who produces a quote without having started the works will struggle to justify the deduction, especially if there is no paid invoice. Court practice nonetheless recognises the principle that compensation for loss is not conditional on the expense actually having been incurred. The Court of Cassation held, in a commercial lease case, in reasoning that can be transposed, that the loss may include the cost of restoring the premises, without compensation being conditional on the repairs having been carried out or on expenses having actually been incurred (our translation) (Cass. 3e civ., 27 June 2024, No. 22-24.502, published in the Bulletin). However, in residential leases, the case law is demanding as to whether a deduction is justified. The judge takes account of later circumstances (rapid re-letting, sale, demolition) which may prove that there was no loss. An unperformed quote alone is rarely enough to justify a deduction in full, especially for large amounts.

Four documents form the core of the tenant's file. First, the signed lease with its annexes, which states the amount of the deposit paid. Second, the entry inventory of condition, ideally detailed room by room and accompanied by dated photographs. Third, the exit inventory of condition, drawn up jointly by both parties or failing that by a court bailiff (commissaire de justice) after a summons by registered letter sent more than seven days in advance. Fourth, proof of the handover of the keys (receipt signed in person or registered letter) and the letter giving the landlord the new address. In addition there is the landlord's statement of deductions, which makes it possible to identify the deductions open to challenge, and any useful email or witness statement. The formal notice and the acknowledgement of receipt are the fifth document, essential for court action. The firm helps to reconstruct missing documents where the tenant has not kept everything.

Yes, but under a special regime. In a multi-occupancy building, Article 22 of the Law of 6 July 1989 provides that the landlord draws up a provisional statement of accounts and may, where duly justified, keep an advance not exceeding 20% of the amount of the security deposit until the annual accounts of the building are closed (our translation). Final settlement and return of the balance take place within the month following final approval of the accounts by the general meeting of the co-owners' association. The Court of Cassation has made clear that this rule is separate from the general time limit of one or two months. In its judgment of 31 May 2018, published in the Bulletin, the Court of Cassation held that where the leased premises are in a multi-occupancy building, final settlement of the charges and return of the balance, after deduction, where applicable, of sums still owed to the landlord and of sums for which the landlord might be liable in place of the tenant, take place within the month following final approval of the building's accounts (our translation). The landlord must therefore justify precisely the share retained and return the balance when the annual accounts are closed.

The protection litigation judge at the Paris judicial court (tribunal judiciaire) has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes relating to residential leases, under Article L. 213-4-3 of the Code of Judicial Organisation (Code de l'organisation judiciaire). This jurisdiction covers return of the security deposit, challenges to deductions, claims for payment of the late-return increase and related damages. Claims on the merits are brought by writ of summons. The Paris judicial court is located at the Parvis du Tribunal de Paris, in the 17th arrondissement. Representation by a lawyer is not mandatory in disputes before the protection litigation judge, but it remains strongly advisable to gauge the evidential strategy and quantify the claims correctly. An appeal is available for disputes above €5,000 and lies to the Paris court of appeal. Below that threshold, the judgment is final and only an appeal to the Court of Cassation remains possible.

Formal notice is not formally mandatory for return of a security deposit, since Article 22 provides for an automatic increase. Even so, it is almost always useful in practice. It formalises the tenant's position, shows diligence and structures the file that will be produced to the judge. Formal notice takes the form of a registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt sent to the landlord or the landlord's managing agent. It sets out the chronology (date of notice to quit, handover of the keys, notice of the new address), lists the disputed deductions with their amounts, calculates the monthly increase already accrued, and sets a short time limit for compliance (15 to 30 days). If the amicable route fails, the formal notice is put before the court as proof of the landlord's refusal. A properly drafted formal notice settles about half of cases without court proceedings, the landlord preferring to return the deposit rather than aggravate the increase and face a trial.

The cost varies with the value of the dispute and the method of recovery. Before the protection litigation judge, the procedure does not require representation by a lawyer, but instructing a lawyer remains advisable, especially to structure the evidence, calculate the increase and anticipate the landlord's arguments. The firm's fees are set out in a written fee agreement made in advance, adapted to the complexity of the case. A tenant who succeeds is generally awarded a sum under Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure towards lawyer's fees, and the landlord is ordered to pay the costs (procedural costs, any service costs). The real net cost is therefore often lower than the gross cost, especially where the late-return increase has run for several months. The firm provides a transparent quote after reading the file, and systematically favours the amicable route of formal notice before any court action, which is less costly.

A report by a court bailiff (commissaire de justice, formerly huissier) is not mandatory if the inventory of condition is drawn up jointly and amicably by the parties. This is in fact the route favoured by the law: Article 3-2 of the Law of 6 July 1989 provides for a court bailiff only where there is no agreement. Where the amicable route fails, the court bailiff acts with the costs shared equally, provided a summons is sent by registered letter at least seven days in advance. The Court of Cassation held in its judgment of 26 October 2023 that this seven-day requirement is imposed on pain of losing reimbursement of half the costs: the party that did not comply with the form bears the whole cost. A report remains useful in disputes involving significant damage, or where one party suspects the other of bad faith. For smaller disputes, photographs dated and agreed by both parties and a summary email suffice in practice.