A survey by the DGCCRF reveals a wide variety of breaches of the CCMI by certain builders of individual houses

The DGCCRF conducted investigations in 2019 in order to track down breaches and various breaches of consumer protection within the framework of the CCMI. This investigation revealed, following previous checks, the persistence of certain professionals in practices that do not comply with the regulations in force.

As a reminder, there are two kinds of CCMI:

• the CCMI with provision of a plan (the most common): the consumer uses a single operator to carry out the plan and the construction (articles L. 231-1 and following of the construction and housing code (CCH ),
• the CCMI without provision of a plan: the consumer has the plans drawn up by a service provider before turning to the manufacturer (art. L. 232-1 et seq. of the CCH).

The survey was conducted in 15 regions including two overseas regions. 285 establishments were inspected in 461 rounds. Of the 23,800 companies in France operating in the building construction sector, 9,500 VSEs-SMEs offered the construction of individual houses.

In order to target their checks, the DGCCRF investigators took into account the complaints received, the results of previous checks and the positive mentions appearing on communication media or on social networks such as "[house] turnkey, " Construction from A to Z”…, in order to verify the validity of the controls.

In the event of abandonment of the site or poor workmanship, it is provided in the CCMI, in order to protect the consumer, that numerous formalities are carried out by the professional such as subscribing to a delivery guarantee or concluding in writing the subcontracting contracts. the start of the execution of the work. The building owner is also concerned by formalities such as subscribing to a damage-work guarantee, obtaining a loan or acquiring ownership of the land to be built. The professional can enlighten him in these steps (law of December 19, 1990 which defines the framework of the CCMI and most of its provisions appear in the Code of construction and housing).

It is in particular these formalities and procedures related to the CCMI that the investigators checked.

The main checkpoints were as follows:

• the existence of a written contract (mandatory in this case);
• the absence of illegal clauses (article L. 231-3 of the CCH);
• the manufacturer's delivery guarantee (article L. 231-6 of the CCH);
• compliance with the call for funds schedule (article R. 231-7 of the CCH);
• legible and understandable information on the right of withdrawal.

A wide variety of breaches of the CCMI have been observed

The results of this survey are quite similar to previous surveys: slightly more establishments out of two do not comply with the regulations (55%). While some of the breaches may have negligible impact on the construction project, such as a single copy of the contract being sent to both contractors instead of one copy each, others may be much more damaging, such as the absence of a written contract or even the start of construction without a guarantee of delivery.

During this investigation, breaches of the rules specific to the CCMI were the most numerous, in particular particularly serious breaches concerning:

• the conformity of the contract,
• the mandatory delivery guarantee,
• information on the right of withdrawal,
• the prohibition for the professional to collect a sum of money before the signing of the contract or before the due date of the claim.

The attention paid to the contracts has in particular made it possible to identify abusive clauses, for example clauses having the purpose or effect of prohibiting the contracting authority from visiting the site, prior to each payment due date and the acceptance of the work or to make the handing over of the keys subject to full payment of the price and thus obstruct the right of the client to deposit the sums remaining due when reservations are made upon acceptance of the work.

However, the shortcomings observed by the DGCCRF do not only concern the contracts themselves. Compliance with the regulations imposed from the phase preceding the signing of the contract was also checked. Several breaches of the Consumer Code relating to pre-contractual consumer information have thus been highlighted.

Investigators also looked for the presence of deceptive or unfair trade practices. Practices such as, for example, a builder who mentioned the references of an insurer who had gone bankrupt or even a commercial agent of a wooden house company who had received a deposit of 35% of the agreed total price but who had never started the work then.

Many bad practices that persist despite everything

These surveys show a slight decrease in the rate of anomalies per establishment compared to the previous year (55% against 57%) and a certain regularity over the last four surveys (from 2016 to 2018), however they still demonstrate the persistence of a still very high level of breaches of regulations.

158 of the 285 companies inspected were followed up by the services of the DGCCRF. The investigators took pedagogical, corrective or repressive measures depending on the seriousness of the results. This resulted in 87 warnings, 56 injunctions, 31 criminal records, 1 administrative record and 1 civil proceeding.

One out of two suites is educational with 49% of warnings (compared to 61% in 2018). A third of the follow-ups were of a corrective nature, i.e. 32% of injunctions (compared to 21% in 2018) and slightly less than one contentious review in 5 gave rise to the drafting of a repressive follow-up, i.e. 18% of lawsuits - criminal offenses (compared to 17% in 2018).

During this investigation, particular attention was paid to verifying that the previous follow-ups had been taken into account by operators who had been subject to a previous inspection. In the majority of cases, a satisfactory return to compliance of the practices of these professionals has been observed. Similarly, several criminal proceedings initiated following previous inspections were the subject of settlements, accepted and settled by the professionals concerned.

The investigators also point out that this persistence of anomalies is explained in particular by the lack of mastery of the regulations on the part of certain manufacturers, which justifies continued inspections of these professionals during future investigations.