Short answer. A buyer of an off-plan property (vente en l’état futur d’achèvement, VEFA) whose home is delivered late can obtain compensation for the whole of their loss, but nothing is owed automatically: there is no statutory late-delivery penalty in a VEFA sale, the delivery deadline is “determined by the contract” (Article 1601-1 of the Civil Code), and clauses suspending that deadline for bad weather, contractor default or government action are valid provided the developer proves each day of suspension. The loss is valued head by head, double housing costs, interim interest, lost rental income or tax benefit, and is claimed after formal notice. A derisory penalty clause can be set aside as unfair, which reopens full compensation. Rescission of the sale is possible but rarely desirable; the completion guarantee never covers delay, only completion if the developer defaults. The case is won on the count of days and on proof of loss, gathered from the first month of delay.
Late delivery has become the routine dispute of residential development. Buyers receive a letter announcing a three-month delay, then a second one, then learn that the structural works contractor has been replaced; they pay rent and interim interest, lose a tenant, watch the deadline for a tax benefit slip away, and wonder what they can claim, from whom, and when. This article answers in the order in which they ask those questions, from the buyer’s point of view, but it also says what a developer can argue in response, because that is what the buyer will meet. Our page on lawyers for VEFA delivery delays describes the situations in which the firm acts.
1. What the contract says, and what the law does not add
The off-plan sale contract sets a delivery deadline, or more often a provisional delivery quarter, together with a list of legitimate grounds for suspension. Article 1601-1 of the Civil Code merely refers to the contract for the deadline; no provision imposes a late-delivery penalty in a VEFA sale. The floor of 1/3,000th of the price per day, often cited, appears in Article R. 231-14 of the Construction and Housing Code and applies only to contracts to build a detached house. In the absence of a penalty clause, the VEFA buyer therefore has only the general law: compensation for loss caused by non-performance, under Article 1231-1 of the Civil Code, provided the loss is proven.
The first step is to reread the deed of sale: the delivery date or quarter, the definition of delivery (handover with the keys, distinct from completion and from acceptance of the works between the developer and its contractors), the grounds for suspension and how they are proven, whether there is a penalty clause and its amount, and any penalties stipulated against the buyer for late payment. That last stipulation matters: a deed that provides a penalty against a buyer who pays late and nothing against a seller who delivers late reveals an imbalance that Article L. 212-1 of the Consumer Code allows to be assessed in the light of the contract as a whole.
2. Grounds for suspension: valid, but to be proven day by day
Developers respond to delay with the legitimate grounds for suspending the deadline. The Cour de cassation has long accepted them: a clause postponing delivery for days of bad weather certified by the architect is valid (Cass. 3e civ., 24 October 2012, No. 11-17.800), as is a clause doubling the number of days postponed to account for disruption on site (Cass. 3e civ., 23 May 2019, No. 18-14.212). But proof is strict. The judgment of 30 April 2025 (No. 23-21.499) requires the certifier’s assessment to rest on objective, public data that the buyer can challenge: a bad-weather count must be capable of being checked against meteorological records. The judgment of 2 May 2024 (No. 22-20.477) narrows the notion of contractor default: a mere delay by the contractor, even a prolonged one, is not a default; there must be termination of the contract after formal notice, and the documents to prove it.
The developer bears the burden of proving each day of suspension it claims. A delay file is therefore handled through an adversarial count: days announced, days proven, days doubled if the clause so provides, and the remaining delay attributable to the developer. A developer who announces ninety days of bad weather and substantiates only forty, with no termination letter for the defaulting contractor it relies on, must answer for the rest. A buyer who asks for the supporting documents from the first postponement puts themselves in a strong position for what follows.
3. Valuing the loss head by head
The most common mistake is to claim “the rent plus the loan repayments”. During the delay, the buyer does not repay capital: they pay interim interest only on the funds released under the payment schedule of Article R. 261-14 of the Construction and Housing Code, 35 per cent on completion of the foundations, 70 per cent when the building is weathertight, 95 per cent on completion. The loss breaks down into separate heads, each documented: the double housing cost (rent or accommodation during the delay), the additional cost of credit (interim interest and loan extension fees), lost rental income for an investor, with the lease or agreement for lease that proves it, the loss of a tax benefit, the loss of a zero-rate loan or a financing condition, the shift in property tax or VAT, incidental costs (storage, removals, travel), loss of enjoyment and non-pecuniary loss, and, where appropriate, a price adjustment.
The head with the highest stakes is tax. For a buy-to-let investment under a tax reduction scheme, completion must take place within thirty months, which run not from the notice of commencement of works but from signature of the authentic deed of the VEFA sale, according to the tax authorities’ published guidance (BOI-IR-RICI-360-10-10, § 115). A delay that goes beyond this deadline causes the tax reduction to be lost for the whole commitment period, amounting to tens of thousands of euros. A ruling request filed with the tax authorities before the deadline expires, to have the situation recorded, turns a contingency into a certain and quantifiable loss that can be claimed against the developer.
4. Formal notice, expert report, court claim: the sequence
Damages for delay are only due after formal notice, unless non-performance is final; the registered letter recording that the deadline has passed, reserving the buyer’s rights and asking for the documents supporting the suspensions is therefore the first step, to be sent as soon as the contractual date has passed, not on delivery. It sets the starting point for interest and deprives the developer of the argument that the delay was accepted. Next come gathering proof of the loss, head by head, the request for the count of suspension days, and, if the developer does not reply or disputes the claim, proceedings before the civil court (tribunal judiciaire) where the property is located. A court-appointed expert is sometimes useful where the reality of the grounds for suspension is in dispute, but is not needed where the debate is only about valuation.
Delivery itself is a moment not to be missed. The buyer who receives the keys signs a handover report in which they record their reservations; apparent defects not reserved at delivery must be notified within the following month, and proceedings must be brought within one year of the date on which the seller can be released from apparent defects (Article 1648, second paragraph, of the Civil Code). The remaining 5 per cent of the price, payable on delivery, may be deposited with a third party if there are reservations. Above all, signing the handover report does not amount to waiving compensation for delay: an express reservation about the delay, written into the report, avoids any argument.
5. The penalty clause: make it apply, or bring it down
Where the deed provides a late-delivery penalty in the buyer’s favour, it applies in principle to the exclusion of any other compensation (Article 1231-5, first paragraph, of the Civil Code). The court may, however, revise it of its own motion if it is manifestly derisory, and Article R. 212-1, 6°, of the Consumer Code irrebuttably presumes unfair any clause that removes or reduces the consumer’s right to compensation where the professional fails to perform. A clause setting the penalty at a few euros a day, capped at an amount unrelated to the loss, can therefore be set aside, and full compensation revives. The difference is considerable: the same delay may be worth a few thousand euros under the clause applied as it stands, and several tens of thousands if it is set aside and the loss is valued head by head. The choice of legal basis is the strategic decision in the case, and it is made before issuing proceedings.
6. Rescission of the sale: possible, rarely advisable
Where the delay is serious enough, the buyer may seek rescission of the sale, through the courts or, after formal notice has gone unanswered, by notification under Articles 1224 et seq. of the Civil Code, with repayment of the sums paid and damages. In practice, rescission is rarely the right solution: the buyer loses the home, often bought at a price that is now below market, has to repay the loan early with the related costs, and becomes a creditor of a developer whose financial position is precisely the cause of the delay. It is reserved for cases where the site has stopped with no prospect of restarting, or where the buyer has an overriding interest in recovering the funds. In other cases, compensation for delay while keeping the property protects the buyer better.
7. A developer in difficulty: what the completion guarantee covers
When the developer falters, buyers turn to the financial completion guarantee (garantie financière d’achèvement) and discover its limits. Article R. 261-21 of the Construction and Housing Code limits its purpose to paying the sums needed to complete the building, and Article R. 261-24 ends it on completion: neither the delay, nor penalties, nor damages fall within the guarantee. The comparison with detached houses is telling: the delivery guarantee under a building contract expressly includes late-delivery penalties beyond thirty days (Article L. 231-6), which the legislature did not provide for VEFA sales. The guarantee can, on the other hand, be called as soon as there is a “financial default of the seller, characterised by a lack of the funds needed for completion” (Article L. 261-10-1), without waiting for insolvency proceedings. Once it has been called, the guarantor alone is entitled to demand the balance of the price, but its claim is capped at the share of the price corresponding to the works it has actually financed (Cass. 3e civ., 11 May 2023, No. 22-13.696). And the guarantee ends when the certificate of completion is issued, even prematurely (Cass. 3e civ., 5 November 2020, No. 19-14.804), which means challenging a certificate issued while the building is not finished.
If the developer enters insolvency proceedings, the VEFA contract remains an ongoing contract (Article L. 622-13 of the Commercial Code): the buyer calls on the administrator to decide whether to continue it, files a claim for damages within two months of publication in the BODACC, and acts against the guarantor, the only claim not affected by the stay of individual proceedings. These three steps have short deadlines and are run in parallel.
8. Acting alone or together
A delayed development involves dozens of buyers in the same position. A group action, in the form of several claimants represented by the same counsel, has advantages: shared expert and legal costs, weight in negotiations with the developer and its insurer, and consistency in the counts of suspension days, which are the same for everyone. It has a limit: losses are individual, an investor who has lost a tax benefit does not have the same case as an owner-occupier paying double rent, and each claim must be valued separately. The firm organises these actions by distinguishing the common core, the count of delay and the validity of suspensions, from the individual claims, and offers the developer an overall negotiation before proceedings are issued.
9. Time limits and orders of magnitude
The claim for compensation for delay is time-barred five years after delivery (Article 2224 of the Civil Code), but the evidence disappears quickly: rent receipts, bank schedules, correspondence with the developer. A case started within six months of delivery, with formal notice sent beforehand, usually ends in a settlement within the year or a judgment within eighteen months to two years. The amount obtained depends on the attributable delay and the heads of loss proven: for a net delay of six months, compensation commonly falls between a third and a half of the equivalent annual rent, more where a tax benefit or rental income is lost. The six points that determine this amount are detailed in our article VEFA delivery delay: the six points that decide what you can actually recover, and in the accompanying practical guide. Defects found on delivery fall under a different regime, presented on our construction defects page.
Has your delivery been postponed, or has work on site stopped? Formal notice and the request for the documents supporting the suspensions should be sent now, and each head of loss documented as you go. A first conversation sets the count and the order of magnitude of what you can obtain.
Frequently asked questions
Is there a statutory late-delivery penalty in a VEFA sale?
No. The delivery deadline is set by the contract (Article 1601-1 of the Civil Code) and no provision imposes a penalty in a VEFA sale; the floor of 1/3,000th of the price per day applies only to detached houses (Article R. 231-14 of the Construction and Housing Code). The buyer obtains compensation for the loss they prove (Article 1231-1 of the Civil Code), or the penalty stipulated in the contract.
Can the developer rely on bad weather to justify the delay?
Yes, if the deed provides for it, but it must prove each day of suspension with objective, verifiable data (Cass. 3e civ., 30 April 2025, No. 23-21.499). A contractor’s default requires termination of its contract after formal notice, not a mere delay (Cass. 3e civ., 2 May 2024, No. 22-20.477).
What can be claimed from the developer for late delivery?
Compensation for each proven head of loss: double housing costs, interim interest and credit costs, lost rental income, loss of a tax benefit or a zero-rate loan, incidental costs, loss of enjoyment. A derisory penalty clause can be set aside as unfair (Article R. 212-1, 6°, of the Consumer Code), which reopens full compensation.
Does the completion guarantee cover late delivery?
No. It covers only the sums needed to complete the building if the developer defaults financially (Articles R. 261-21 and L. 261-10-1 of the Construction and Housing Code) and ends on completion. Penalties and damages for delay remain the developer’s liability.
Can the sale be cancelled for late delivery?
Rescission is possible where the delay is serious, after formal notice, with repayment of the sums paid. It is rarely advisable: the buyer loses the property, repays the loan early and becomes a creditor of a developer that is often in a fragile position. Compensation for delay while keeping the home is generally preferable.
Article written by Hervé Guyader, avocat at the Paris Bar, doctor of law. This content is general information and does not replace legal advice.