Your house in France is affected by defects, the repair works have been costed, but you feel you have suffered more than that: years spent living in a damaged home, and a resale value reduced by the property’s history. How do you obtain compensation for these two heads of loss? A ruling of the Reims Court of Appeal of 21 January 2020 (case no. RG 18/018341) shows what the judge expects, and what is often missing from the claims.
The case
A couple had a house built. It cracked quickly, the ground having suffered from drought. They sought compensation under three heads:
- the cost of the repair works;
- loss of enjoyment;
- a discount on their property at resale.
Defects that compromise the soundness of the structure fall under the builders’ ten-year liability (garantie décennale, French Civil Code, article 1792). The cost of the repairs, costed by an expert, was not disputed on appeal: the court adopted €293,356 including VAT, as the first-instance court had. The debate concerned the other two heads.
Loss of enjoyment
The couple argued that, before the works, their house had a normal rental value of €1,300 a month, but that with its cracks and the works to come it could only have been let for €700. They therefore claimed €600 for each month of waiting.
The court replied that the couple “do not explain how they arrive at an estimate of 1,300 euros and 700 euros for the rental value of their house”, and that they “do not produce any estimates either, from a notaire or from several estate agencies”, of the value their house would have had without the defects.
The message is clear: no loss without proof. Each party must prove the facts needed for its claim to succeed (French Code of Civil Procedure, article 9), and the judge decides on the evidence produced, not on the parties’ opinions. For the works, an expert’s report had been filed; for the loss of enjoyment, nothing.
The court also pointed to a frequent error of reasoning. The couple seemed to infer, from the size of the works awarded, a higher value and therefore a higher rent. Yet “value, which depends on the features of the property and the local market, is not mathematical and cannot equal the cost of building the house plus all the works and expenses undertaken afterwards to improve it”. The point comes up in many files: a house bought for €100,000 in which €100,000 of works are carried out is not necessarily worth €200,000. Everything depends on the market at the time of sale.
The court finally awarded €10,000 for the period before the works, as compensation for “the fear of living in this damaged house”, the couple having never left the premises, and €6,000 for the disturbance during the works. It rejected, however, the claim for the period after the works, since the repairs prescribed by the expert were intended to restore the property completely.
Without a valuation of the rental value, that sum seems reasonable. Yet it covers a disturbance of about six years, roughly €1,667 a year or €139 a month, for a house where, according to the ruling, the ceilings revealed the reinforcement bars of the attic and the sprayed insulation, with consequences for heating. A valuation of the rental value with and without the defects, produced in time, would have given the judge a basis to go further.
The discount on the property
Does a bad history automatically cause a loss of value at resale? The couple argued so: an informed buyer would offer only €160,000 instead of €220,000, a discount of €60,000. They relied on two estimates from the same agency, one from 2015 (€210,000 to €230,000) taking the history into account, the other from 2018 (€160,000 to €180,000) asserting that no client, even after repair, would buy except at a derisory price.
The court rejected the claim. Asserting a risk of recurrence after repair amounts “to calling into question the competence of all building professionals, including the court expert”. The loss claimed, “resting on no objective element”, was held unfounded: only a certain loss is compensable, and the works, covered by a new ten-year guarantee, are deemed to restore the property.
Two lessons on proof. First, the judge considers the quality and number of the opinions produced: the court itself refers to “a notaire or several agencies”. A single estimate, with no method set out and no references, carries little weight, whatever the profession of its author. The Charte de l’expertise en évaluation immobilière (French property valuation charter, 6th edition, November 2025, Title I, § 1.1) distinguishes the opinion of value, which asserts a value without demonstration, from the valuation report, which justifies and demonstrates it and engages the expert’s professional liability. Second, an absolute assertion such as “no client would buy” is hard to sustain before a judge, because it cannot be demonstrated.
Does a “preference” discount exist?
The solution is legally sound. I would be more nuanced on the substance. Most of my valuations rest on figures and market references. Even so, a share of purchase decisions, perhaps one in five, rests on personal preference, sometimes irrational. In a case like this one, a majority of buyers will look past the history, reassured by a fresh ten-year guarantee; a minority will prefer another property for peace of mind. That minority reduces demand and therefore, at the margin, the price or the time to sell.
The question of disclosure then arises. The seller must disclose to the buyer the information whose importance is decisive for his consent (Civil Code, article 1112-1), which includes the history of the defects even once repaired. A professional therefore cannot keep that history quiet; nor can he draw a conclusion from it without proof.
To establish such a discount, an empirical approach would be needed: identify properties that suffered a comparable event, compare their resale price with their purchase price, and set the difference against that of unaffected properties in the same area. The same method would apply to other subjective factors, such as proximity to wind turbines or a mobile phone mast. It is long work, but it is the only kind that turns an intuition into objective evidence.
Key points for your file
- Each head of loss needs its own proof: the report that costs the works proves neither the lost rent nor the discount.
- Loss of enjoyment is demonstrated by a rental value with and without the defects, established by comparison and over a precise period.
- The discount at resale must rest on objective evidence: references to comparable properties that suffered a similar event, not an assertion.
- The value of a property is never the sum of what it cost.
Further reading
The valuation of the losses affecting a property, loss of value, loss of enjoyment or lost rent, is presented on the Property loss of value page. On the same theme: a damp wall and the loss of value and the building next door and a house’s loss of value.
What next
Has your property lost value because of a third party?
Neighbouring construction, hidden defect, wrong floor area, overpayment at purchase: the loss of value and the loss of enjoyment quantified with the method accepted by French courts.
Free quote, by email or by phone. No commitment before the quote is accepted. Fees are never linked to the value of the property (Charte de l’expertise, Title I, §2.1).
