You own a flat in France, you let it to a tenant, and the rent stops arriving. Or you want the property back, to sell it, to move into it, or to house a close relative. In France, neither wish works the way an English landlord would expect. A French residential lease (bail d’habitation<\/i>) is a protective statute, not a contract you can end at will, and every step, from the first demand letter to the last eviction van, follows a compulsory order. Get one step wrong and the clock restarts. This guide explains, for a British owner letting a French home after Brexit, how to recover unpaid rent, how to end the lease lawfully, and how an eviction is actually enforced, with the exact texts and court decisions that govern each stage.<\/p>\n
One preliminary point matters for British readers. Since Brexit, a British citizen is a third-country national in France, which changes residence, visa and tax rules. It does not change lease law. The statutes on residential lettings apply to every landlord and every tenant on French soil, whatever their nationality. Where Brexit still bites is practical: a landlord living in the United Kingdom needs a reliable address for service in France, a representative who can receive procedural documents, and a clear view of where the rental income is taxed. The procedure described below is identical for a landlord in London and a landlord in Lyon; only the logistics differ.<\/p>\n
Almost every French residential lease contains a termination clause (clause r\u00e9solutoire<\/i>), a provision stating that the lease ends automatically if the tenant fails to pay rent or charges, or fails to pay the security deposit. The clause looks formidable on paper. In practice it is dormant until the landlord activates it through a strictly regulated document: the formal demand to pay (commandement de payer<\/i>), served by a commissaire de justice<\/i>, the court officer formerly known as the huissier de justice<\/i>. A simple reminder letter, even sent by recorded delivery, does not start any legal clock.<\/p>\n
The governing text is article 24 of the Act of 6 July 1989 (loi n\u00b0 89-462 du 6 juillet 1989 tendant \u00e0 am\u00e9liorer les rapports locatifs<\/i>), the statute that frames nearly all French residential lettings, available in full on L\u00e9gifrance<\/a>. It provides that “Cette clause ne produit effet que six semaines apr\u00e8s un commandement de payer demeur\u00e9 infructueux.”<\/a> Note the current period: six weeks, not the two months that older guides still mention. If the tenant pays in full within those six weeks, the clause is neutralised and the lease continues. If the tenant pays nothing, or pays only part of the arrears, the landlord may then ask a court to record (constater<\/i>) that the clause has taken effect.<\/p>\n The demand itself must contain six compulsory statements, and the same article warns that “Le commandement de payer contient, \u00e0 peine de nullit\u00e9 :”<\/a> what follows. Nullity (nullit\u00e9<\/i>) means the document is legally void: the six-week clock never started, and everything built on it collapses. The six statements are the following. First, “La mention que le locataire dispose d’un d\u00e9lai de six semaines pour payer sa dette ;”<\/a> Second, “Le montant mensuel du loyer et des charges ;”<\/a> Third, “Le d\u00e9compte de la dette ;”<\/a> Fourth, “L’avertissement qu’\u00e0 d\u00e9faut de paiement ou d’avoir sollicit\u00e9 des d\u00e9lais de paiement, le locataire s’expose \u00e0 une proc\u00e9dure judiciaire de r\u00e9siliation de son bail et d’expulsion ;”<\/a> Fifth, a notice that the tenant may apply to the departmental housing solidarity fund (fonds de solidarit\u00e9 pour le logement<\/i>), with its address, for financial help. Sixth, “La mention de la possibilit\u00e9 pour le locataire de saisir, \u00e0 tout moment, la juridiction comp\u00e9tente aux fins de demander un d\u00e9lai de gr\u00e2ce sur le fondement de l’article 1343-5 du code civil.”<\/a> A British landlord should read that list twice, because each missing line is a ground on which the tenant’s lawyer will have the demand annulled.<\/p>\n Two further duties attach to the demand. Where a guarantor (caution<\/a><\/i>) guarantees the lease, the demand must be served on the guarantor within fifteen days of service on the tenant, failing which the guarantor cannot be held to penalties or late interest. And where the landlord is an individual, or a family property company (soci\u00e9t\u00e9 civile<\/i> formed exclusively between relatives), and the arrears reach the statutory threshold of two months’ uninterrupted non-payment or twice the monthly rent, the court officer must report the demand to the local body that coordinates eviction-prevention action (commission de coordination des actions de pr\u00e9vention des expulsions locatives<\/i>, known as CCAPEX). That report triggers a social and financial assessment of the tenant. For a British owner who lets through a family soci\u00e9t\u00e9 civile immobili\u00e8re<\/i> (SCI<\/a>, the French property-holding company many British families use), this reporting duty applies in full.<\/p>\n The logic behind this formalism comes from the Civil Code itself. Article 1225 provides that “La r\u00e9solution est subordonn\u00e9e \u00e0 une mise en demeure infructueuse, s’il n’a pas \u00e9t\u00e9 convenu que celle-ci r\u00e9sulterait du seul fait de l’inex\u00e9cution. La mise en demeure ne produit effet que si elle mentionne express\u00e9ment la clause r\u00e9solutoire.”<\/a> In plain terms: no effective warning that names the clause, no termination. The demand must therefore refer expressly to the termination clause of the lease. Practical advice follows. Keep proof of every payment and every document from day one, instruct the commissaire de justice<\/i> with the exact monthly rent, the exact arrears schedule and the guarantor’s address, and check the served demand against the six-item list before the six weeks run. The official step-by-step guide to unpaid rent and tenant eviction on service-public.fr<\/a> is a useful checklist alongside the statute.<\/p>\n When the six weeks expire without full payment, the landlord may issue a summons (assignation<\/i>) asking the court to record that the termination clause has taken effect, to order eviction, and to award the arrears plus a monthly occupation payment (indemnit\u00e9 d’occupation<\/i>) for the period the former tenant stays on. Jurisdiction belongs to the protection litigation judge (juge des contentieux de la protection<\/i>), the specialist division of the local judicial court (tribunal judiciaire<\/i>). The Code of Judicial Organisation states that “Le juge des contentieux de la protection conna\u00eet des actions tendant \u00e0 l’expulsion des personnes qui occupent aux fins d’habitation des immeubles b\u00e2tis sans droit ni titre.”<\/a> For a property in Paris, that means the Paris judicial court; elsewhere, the court of the place where the property sits. A British landlord living in the United Kingdom should arrange representation by a local lawyer, because hearings, payment proposals and enforcement steps all run in French and on short deadlines.<\/p>\n Before the judge, nothing is automatic. The judge first checks the paperwork: was the demand valid, were the six compulsory statements present, was the guarantor served in time, were the social-housing preconditions respected where they apply? A decision of the Court of Cassation (Cour de cassation<\/i>), France’s supreme court for civil matters, illustrates how strictly prior steps are policed. In a case about social housing, the Third Civil Chamber quashed an eviction order because a fresh court action had been launched without a fresh prior notification, holding that “alors que toute assignation tendant \u00e0 la r\u00e9siliation du bail doit \u00eatre notifi\u00e9e au pr\u00e9alable \u00e0 la commission, peu important qu’elle ait \u00e9t\u00e9 ant\u00e9rieurement saisie dans le cadre d’une pr\u00e9c\u00e9dente proc\u00e9dure”<\/a> (Court of Cassation, Third Civil Chamber, 18 June 2014, appeal no. 13-15.049). The context there was assisted housing, but the lesson is general and every landlord should memorise it: each new court action needs its own prior formalities redone. Recycling an old notification from an earlier, abandoned case is a classic way to lose.<\/p>\n The judge then has wide powers to protect a tenant who is struggling but acting in good faith. The court may suspend the effects of the termination clause and grant the tenant extra time to pay. Article 1343-5 of the Civil Code provides that “Le juge peut, compte tenu de la situation du d\u00e9biteur et en consid\u00e9ration des besoins du cr\u00e9ancier, reporter ou \u00e9chelonner, dans la limite de deux ann\u00e9es, le paiement des sommes dues.”<\/a> This is the grace period (d\u00e9lai de gr\u00e2ce<\/i>): up to two years of deferred or staggered payments. While it runs, enforcement is frozen and late penalties do not accrue. A tenant who resumes payment under such a schedule keeps the roof; a landlord who can show the tenant’s bad faith, for example a tenant who can pay but refuses, or who never engages with the process, will press the court to refuse any delay.<\/p>\n At the end of the hearing, three outcomes are possible. The court may record termination and order eviction with a monthly occupation payment, usually set at the level of the former rent plus charges, until the premises are actually freed. It may suspend the termination clause and set a repayment schedule, with termination reviving only if the tenant defaults again. Or it may dismiss the claim where the landlord’s paperwork fails. Interest, indexation and legal costs follow the general rules, and the guarantor, properly served, can be ordered to pay alongside the tenant. For the British owner, the practical message is that the court stage rewards preparation and punishes haste: a complete file with the lease, the rent ledger, the valid demand, proof of service on tenant and guarantor, and the CCAPEX report where required, against a tenant who simply stopped paying without explanation, is the strongest position available.<\/p>\n Recovering arrears is one battle; recovering the property itself is another, governed by the notice to quit (cong\u00e9<\/i>) under article 15 of the 1989 Act. The Court of Cassation restates the rulebook in these terms: “lorsque le bailleur donne cong\u00e9 \u00e0 son locataire, ce cong\u00e9 doit \u00eatre justifi\u00e9 soit par sa d\u00e9cision de reprendre ou de vendre le logement, soit par un motif l\u00e9gitime et s\u00e9rieux”<\/a> (Court of Cassation, Third Civil Chamber, 12 October 2023, appeal no. 22-18.580). There are therefore exactly three lawful families of grounds for an unfurnished letting. Repossession (reprise<\/i>) means taking the home back to live in it as a main residence, or to house a close relative. Sale (vente<\/i>) means selling, with the sitting tenant enjoying a statutory right of first refusal on stated terms. Serious and legitimate reason (motif l\u00e9gitime et s\u00e9rieux<\/i>) covers, most commonly, persistent breach by the tenant such as repeated late payment, but the reason must be real, documented and proportionate.<\/p>\n Form and timing are as strict as for the demand. The notice must state the ground relied on, and for repossession it must name the beneficiary and their address plus the family link, on pain of nullity. As the Court of Cassation recalls, “A peine de nullit\u00e9, le cong\u00e9 donn\u00e9 par le bailleur doit indiquer le motif all\u00e9gu\u00e9 et, en cas de reprise, les nom et adresse du b\u00e9n\u00e9ficiaire de la reprise ainsi que la nature du lien existant entre le bailleur et le b\u00e9n\u00e9ficiaire de la reprise.”<\/a> (Court of Cassation, Third Civil Chamber, 16 April 2026, appeal no. 24-13.191). And “Le d\u00e9lai de pr\u00e9avis applicable au cong\u00e9 est de six mois lorsqu’il \u00e9mane du bailleur.”<\/a> Six months’ notice for an unfurnished home, served by the court officer or by recorded letter with proof of receipt, expiring at the end of the lease term. A notice that arrives late, or that omits the ground, or that names no beneficiary for a repossession, is void, and the lease rolls on.<\/p>\n Two recent supreme court decisions show how courts test a repossession notice. In the October 2023 case, tenants accused their landlord of a sham repossession, arguing that his evidence, electoral registration, building works, utility contracts, all post-dated the notice. The Court of Cassation upheld the notice, ruling that the appeal court “pouvait tenir compte d’\u00e9l\u00e9ments post\u00e9rieurs d\u00e8s lors qu’ils \u00e9taient de nature \u00e0 \u00e9tablir cette intention”<\/a>, the landlord’s real and serious intention, assessed on the day the notice was served, to live in the home as his main residence. For landlords, the message is to build the evidence file early and keep feeding it: moving plans, registrations, works invoices, utility subscriptions, tax office notifications. For tenants reading this in reverse, the message is symmetrical: a repossession challenged as fraudulent will be examined on the facts, and the judge may verify the ground on their own motion, since “en cas de contestation, le juge peut, m\u00eame d’office, v\u00e9rifier la r\u00e9alit\u00e9 du motif du cong\u00e9 et le respect des obligations pr\u00e9vues par celui-ci”<\/a>.<\/p>\n The April 2026 decision draws the opposite boundary, and it matters directly to British families where the owner is elderly. A landlady served a repossession notice to live in the flat herself, then died before the six-month notice period expired; her son tried to take over the notice and evict. The Court of Cassation quashed the eviction, holding that “les conditions de la reprise du logement devant \u00eatre appr\u00e9ci\u00e9es en la personne de son b\u00e9n\u00e9ficiaire, le d\u00e9c\u00e8s de celui-ci, survenu avant la date d’expiration du d\u00e9lai de pr\u00e9avis, prive d’effet le cong\u00e9 aux fins de reprise.”<\/a> Because repossession is assessed in the person of its named beneficiary, the beneficiary’s death before the notice expires kills the notice; the heir cannot inherit it and must serve a fresh notice in their own name if they qualify. Succession lawyers acting for British estates with let French property should diarise this point: death reshuffles the notice, it does not transmit it.<\/p>\n Two practical warnings complete the picture. First, selling a let property while the tenant is in place follows its own choreography, with price notification and the tenant’s pre-emption right, and a notice timed to the lease term; owners who want to sell with vacant possession should take advice before serving anything, since a botched sale notice can delay the transaction by a full lease cycle. British owners who are tax-resident in the United Kingdom and plan to sell a French second home will also want to settle the capital-gains and treaty position in parallel. Second, furnished lettings (locations meubl\u00e9es<\/i>) and mobility leases obey different durations and notice periods from the classic three-year unfurnished lease; never copy an unfurnished template onto a furnished tenancy. In every configuration, the discipline is the same: correct ground, correct beneficiary, correct mentions, correct six-month timing, served in a provable form.<\/p>\n A court order recording termination is not the end of the story; it is the ticket to a second, enforcement phase, and that phase has its own mandatory pauses. Once the judgment is final or enforceable, the commissaire de justice<\/i> serves an order to vacate (commandement d’avoir \u00e0 lib\u00e9rer les lieux<\/i>, usually shortened to commandement de quitter les lieux<\/i>). The Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures then imposes a cooling-off period: where the eviction concerns a place lived in by the person evicted, “elle ne peut avoir lieu qu’\u00e0 l’expiration d’un d\u00e9lai de deux mois qui suit le commandement”<\/a> (article L412-1). During those two months the occupant may leave voluntarily, negotiate handing back the keys, or apply to the enforcement judge (juge de l’ex\u00e9cution<\/i>) for extra time. The judge can reduce or remove the period only in narrow cases, notably where rehousing steps failed because of the tenant or where the occupant entered by force or trickery.<\/p>\nB. What does the judge decide once the case reaches court?<\/h3>\n
II. How do you lawfully take back the property and have an eviction enforced?<\/h2>\n
A. When can a landlord give notice, and what makes the notice valid?<\/h3>\n
B. How is an eviction actually carried out, and what can still stop it?<\/h3>\n