Renovation work : Appart’City’s claim for €17,014 has been rejected

Legal action brought against a landlord following work carried out unilaterally

In a judgment dated 13 May 2026, the Nanterre District Court dismissed all the claims brought by Appart’City against the owner of a unit located in a hotel-style residence operated under the Appart’City brand. This decision provides important insights into the allocation of obligations between the landlord and the operator regarding renovation works in tourist residences.

The dispute concerned a flat acquired by Actual Investissement in a residence operated by Appart’City. The initial commercial lease, entered into in 2008, provided for an annual rent of approximately €8,600 including VAT and placed the responsibility for all tenant-related repairs, as well as all repairs other than major repairs under Article 606 of the Civil Code, on the tenant.

In 2019, Appart’City considered that the property was in a state of disrepair requiring a complete refurbishment. It therefore sent a letter to the landlord estimating the cost of the works at €17,014 including VAT and stating that these would be carried out at its expense. The works were finally carried out in 2020. Having failed to obtain reimbursement of the costs, Appart’City sued the owner for payment.

Appart’City’s argument: the dilapidation is the landlord’s responsibility

To justify its claim, Appart’City argued that the property had been in operation for over ten years and that, in a holiday residence, such a period of operation was sufficient to constitute a state of dilapidation requiring refurbishment. According to the operator, the landlord remained liable for the works made necessary by this dilapidation, which could not be equated with mere tenant repairs.

The company also cited several inspections carried out at the residence, as well as expert reports setting out wear and tear scales applicable to tourist residences. It argued that the renovation of the communal areas decided upon by the co-ownership association also demonstrated the need for a general refurbishment of the establishment.

Finally, Appart’City considered that its letter of 30 August 2019 constituted sufficient formal notice to allow it, on the basis of Article 1222 of the Civil Code, to carry out the works itself and then claim reimbursement from the landlord.

The court ruled out the existence of dilapidation justifying a complete renovation

The court carried out a detailed comparison of two bailiff’s reports drawn up in 2017 and 2019 respectively. It noted that the first report found the flat to be generally in good condition, with the exception of a cracked tile and a carpet showing normal wear and tear. Two years later, only a few minor instances of damage were noted: a damaged bath screen, slightly worn furniture, a broken floor tile or a stained carpet.

In the court’s view, these findings in no way demonstrated the need for a complete renovation of the property. Yet the work carried out by Appart’City went far beyond repairing the observed defects, as it involved the floors, paintwork, electrical systems, plumbing, furniture, household appliances and numerous fixtures.

The judges also emphasised that Appart’City had not provided evidence of regular maintenance of the property, even though the lease required it to bear the cost of tenant repairs as provided for by the decree of 26 August 1987. The invoices submitted did not establish that the operator had in fact carried out this maintenance.

A formal notice deemed non-existent

The central point of the judgment, however, lies in the application of Article 1222 of the Civil Code. This provision allows a creditor, following a formal notice, to have an obligation performed by a third party at the debtor’s expense.

The court considered that the letter sent on 30 August 2019 did not constitute a genuine formal notice. Far from requiring the landlord to carry out the works on pain of legal action, this letter in fact offered him two options: to agree to cover the costs of the works or to enter into a new commercial lease providing for a reduction in rent and a new mechanism for financing the renovations.

The judges concluded that Appart’City had never clearly demanded that the landlord carry out the works nor set a reasonable deadline for compliance. In the absence of prior formal notice or judicial authorisation, the operator could not therefore act in the landlord’s stead and then claim reimbursement of the expenses incurred.

An important decision for managed holiday residences

The court consequently dismissed Appart’City’s claim for reimbursement of €17,014 and also rejected its other claims. This decision serves as a reminder that the operator of a tourist residence cannot rely solely on the age of a property to impose a complete renovation on the landlord. It also confirms that, where work is carried out in the landlord’s stead, strict compliance with the conditions of Article 1222 of the Civil Code remains essential, in particular the existence of a genuine prior formal notice.