A landlord may identify a scratch they believe is new. The tenant may say it was already there. Both parties may agree on what is visible while disagreeing about its origin, legal characterization or possible cost.
The key is not to mix those questions together.
A property inspection is primarily intended to describe the condition of the property and preserve a jointly documented record of what was observed. Whether damage is attributable to the tenant, what amount may be deducted and how a financial disagreement should be resolved generally comes later.
The objective should therefore be twofold:
create the most accurate and jointly documented inspection record possible;
preserve the possibility of an amicable solution before involving a commissaire de justice or going to court.
1. Not every disagreement is about the same issue
Different disputes may concern the fact itself, when it appeared, whether it is damage or normal wear, who is responsible, or the financial amount claimed.
These questions should not be treated as if they were identical.
2. First rule: describe the facts before assigning responsibility
One of the best ways to prevent escalation is to separate the physical observation from its interpretation.
Instead of writing:
Door damaged by the tenant.
it is often better to write:
Bedroom door: chip approximately 4 cm wide on the lower section, not visible in the reference photo attached to the move-in inspection.
The French Decree of 30 March 2016 allows the inspection record to contain observations and reservations. This is particularly useful when a point remains disputed.
3. Can the parties sign while still disagreeing?
Yes, if both accept that the document accurately records their respective positions.
For example:
Observation: scratch approximately 12 cm long on the living-room flooring.
Landlord's comment: scratch not visible in the move-in inspection.
Tenant's comment: states that the scratch was already present at move-in and disputes responsibility.
Status: disputed item.
A signature should not be presented as automatic acceptance of financial liability.
4. Why the repair amount should not necessarily be negotiated on the spot
The move-out inspection is not always the right moment to determine the final cost of a repair.
Quotations, invoices, replacement options, wear and tear and other supporting information may still be unavailable.
It is therefore useful to separate:
Stage 1: the inspection
What do we observe today and how does it differ from the reference condition?
Stage 2: the financial settlement
Is that difference attributable to the tenant and, if so, what amount can be supported?
5. Security-deposit deductions are dealt with afterwards
Where a deduction is contemplated, the landlord must be able to support it.
French government guidance lists supporting documents such as move-in and move-out inspections, photographs, a commissaire de justice report, quotations and invoices.
The tenant may dispute deductions.
It is therefore often better not to make signature of the inspection conditional on immediate acceptance of a financial amount that has not yet been documented.
6. A six-step amicable method
Return to neutral wording.
Compare with the move-in record.
Preserve both observations.
Add supporting evidence.
Clearly identify the disputed point.
Defer the financial discussion if necessary.
The parties may reach agreement on the factual record while continuing to discuss responsibility and cost afterwards.
7. What if the tenant or landlord genuinely refuses to sign?
Signature is one of the items required by the Decree of 30 March 2016.
Where an amicable inspection cannot be established because one party does not attend, refuses to carry out the inspection or refuses to sign, French law provides for a commissaire de justice to establish the report.
Either party may initiate the process.
The commissaire de justice notifies the parties at least seven days in advance by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt. The regulated cost is shared equally between landlord and tenant under the statutory procedure.
8. No signature does not always mean an explicit refusal
With electronic signature, a signer may request changes, not review the document immediately, forget to sign, encounter a technical problem, stop responding or allow the signing request to expire.
It is therefore inaccurate to write automatically:
Signature refused.
when no refusal was actually expressed.
A more precise wording is:
Document not signed by this party before the signing request expired.
9. What is the status of a document signed by only one party?
A document signed only by the landlord or only by the tenant should not be presented as a jointly signed property inspection.
It may still be useful as supporting material in a file, particularly when accompanied by photos, messages and other evidence.
But where the inspection cannot ultimately be established jointly and amicably, Article 3-2 of the French Law of 6 July 1989 provides for a report by a commissaire de justice.
10. How can the parties avoid reaching the commissaire de justice stage?
Many situations can still be resolved before that point.
Describe the defect before assigning blame.
Allow each party to record their own comment.
Photograph the disputed item.
Review earlier inspection records, photos, messages, incidents and repairs.
Separate the physical observation from payment.
Allow a short review stage before final signature.
This does not guarantee agreement, but it reduces refusals caused only by fear that signing means accepting financial responsibility.
11. Can the inspection document be consolidated after the on-site visit?
Caution is needed.
Article 3-2 of the French Law of 6 July 1989 links the inspection to the handing over and return of the keys.
The legal texts do not provide a general period after a move-out visit during which the document can be freely completed several days later.
An important distinction should therefore be made between:
formatting or clarifying observations already made;
and adding a new physical finding that was never jointly observed.
12. What can reasonably be reviewed or formatted afterwards?
As a practical safeguard, a short consolidation stage may be used to correct a typo, clarify wording, link a photo to the correct item, verify that each party's observations are included and clearly identify a disputed point.
For example:
Scratch flooring near window
may become:
Living room – flooring – scratch approximately 12 cm long near the French window.
provided the revised wording accurately reflects what was observed during the visit and is shown to the parties before signature.
13. What should be avoided after the keys are returned?
It is much riskier to add a new finding that was not examined during the visit.
For example:
Oven not working.
when the oven was never tested or mentioned during the inspection.
Other risky practices include deleting another party's photo, changing a comment without preserving the original position, turning a neutral description into an attribution of responsibility, or adding damage that was never identified during the key handover.
14. There is no general ten-day period to supplement a move-out inspection
At move-in, the tenant may ask the landlord or representative to supplement the inspection within ten days of its establishment.
During the first month of the heating period, the tenant may also request an addition regarding heating equipment.
Those rules apply to the move-in inspection.
French law does not provide an equivalent general ten-day period for freely supplementing the move-out inspection.
15. What if the financial disagreement arises after move-out?
After the inspection, the disagreement may shift to the return of the security deposit.
The landlord may consider a deduction justified. The tenant may dispute responsibility, wear and tear, the amount, the need for repair or the supporting evidence.
The first step should remain amicable.
A useful approach is to provide a clear statement showing the item concerned, the difference between move-in and move-out, the reason for the deduction, the supporting document, the amount and the balance actually returned.
16. How can an amicable financial agreement be reached?
Before litigation, the parties can keep exchanges in writing, review evidence again, adjust a claim where wear and tear is accepted, and record any compromise reached.
The aim is to resolve the financial disagreement without artificially reopening the physical inspection.
17. What is the role of the departmental conciliation commission?
The departmental conciliation commission, or CDC, helps landlords and tenants seek an amicable solution free of charge.
For private-sector residential tenancies within its scope, referral is optional for disputes concerning, among other things, move-in or move-out inspections and security deposits.
Its role must however be distinguished from that of the commissaire de justice.
The commissaire de justice establishes the report where a jointly agreed inspection cannot be completed.
The CDC seeks an amicable solution to a dispute, including disputes about the inspection or the financial consequences of the security deposit.
The CDC therefore does not replace the statutory report by a commissaire de justice where the inspection itself cannot be established.
18. Full example: disputed scratch on flooring
At move-out, a 12 cm scratch is visible on the living-room flooring.
The landlord says it does not appear in the move-in record. The tenant says it was already there.
Poor approach
Flooring damaged by tenant – €600 deduction.
This mixes the observation, responsibility and price.
More cautious approach
Observation: scratch approximately 12 cm long on the living-room flooring near the French window.
Landlord's comment: scratch not identified in the move-in inspection or associated photos.
Tenant's comment: states that the scratch was already present at move-in.
Status: origin disputed.
The parties can then try to sign that factual record and deal with any financial claim afterwards.
19. Example: damage is established but the cost is unknown
A bedroom door is cracked at move-out. Both parties agree the crack is new, but the repair cost is not yet known.
The inspection can simply record:
Bedroom door: vertical crack approximately 20 cm long, absent from the move-in inspection.
The financial issue can then be dealt with using an appropriate quotation or other supporting document.
20. Example: an electronic signing request expires
In a digital process, a document may be sent for signature and remain unanswered.
In Homellya, for example, there is currently no action corresponding to an explicit “refuse signature” button. If the signer does not sign within the available period, the signing request expires.
That event proves that the signature was not collected within the available period. It does not, by itself, prove that the signer expressly rejected the contents.
Whatever tool is used, it is useful to distinguish between an explicit refusal, no response, expiry of an electronic signing request, a technical issue and a pending request for correction.
21. A clear timeline makes disputes easier to understand
A well-organized file can preserve the inspection date and time, findings, photos, landlord comments, tenant comments, changes made before signature, the final version, sending date, signatures collected, any signing-request expiry, later financial correspondence and supporting documents for deductions.
This timeline does not guarantee that disputes will disappear, but it makes it much easier to understand what actually happened.
Frequently asked questions
Can the parties disagree and still sign the inspection?
Yes, if the document accurately records the physical findings and the parties' differing observations.
Does signing mean accepting every repair charge?
No. The inspection primarily describes the condition of the property. Responsibility and financial consequences must be considered separately.
Must the amount of a deduction be decided during the inspection?
No. It can be determined afterwards on the basis of appropriate supporting documents.
What happens if the tenant refuses to sign?
If an amicable inspection cannot be established because one party refuses to sign, French law provides for a report by a commissaire de justice.
What if the person simply does not respond to an electronic signing request?
No response or an expired request should not automatically be described as an explicit refusal. The document nevertheless remains unsigned by that party.
Does a document signed only by the landlord automatically become final?
No. It should not be presented as a jointly signed inspection.
Can the document be finalized after the visit?
Formatting or reviewing findings already made may be possible with caution. Adding new physical findings after the visit is much more problematic.
Is there a ten-day period to supplement a move-out inspection?
No. The statutory ten-day period applies to the move-in inspection, not the move-out inspection.
How can a security-deposit deduction be challenged?
The tenant may request supporting documents and dispute the deduction. An amicable solution can be sought before formal proceedings.
Can the CDC help?
Yes. For relevant tenancies, the CDC may be used on an optional basis for disputes about inspections or security deposits.
Does the CDC replace the commissaire de justice?
No. Their roles are different.
Key takeaways
A disagreement does not automatically mean an amicable inspection is impossible.
Separate the physical observation from responsibility and cost.
Divergent observations can be preserved in the same document.
Signing the inspection is not automatic acceptance of financial liability.
Financial deductions are generally considered afterwards with supporting evidence.
A genuine refusal to sign may lead to a commissaire de justice.
An expired electronic signing request should not automatically be labelled a refusal.
There is no general ten-day period for supplementing a move-out inspection.
A short review after the visit should not be used to add new unilateral physical findings.
The CDC may help seek an amicable resolution for certain inspection or security-deposit disputes.
A clear timeline of facts, photos, comments and correspondence is one of the best ways to reduce conflict.
Conclusion
A disagreement about a property inspection is not necessarily a failure.
The key is to avoid trying to resolve three different questions at the same time: what is physically observed, who is responsible and how much it should cost.
Where the parties can accurately describe the property, preserve their differing observations and defer the financial discussion until supporting documents are available, many situations can remain amicable.
The commissaire de justice remains an essential safeguard when a joint inspection is genuinely impossible. But before reaching that point, factual wording, strong documentation and a clear separation between observation and financial consequences can often preserve dialogue.
Legal sources
French Law no. 89-462 of 6 July 1989, Article 3-2.
Decree no. 2016-382 of 30 March 2016 on property-inspection requirements.
Service-Public.fr guidance on move-out property inspections.
Service-Public.fr guidance on security deposits.
Service-Public.fr guidance on the departmental conciliation commission (CDC).
This article provides general information and does not constitute personalized legal advice.
