My tenant refuses to sign the property inventory: 6 weeks of deadlock

1 April 2025 — the refusal

I rent out a 3-bedroom house in the Bomel neighbourhood of Namur. My tenant, Youssef, 34, an IT professional, had been living there with his partner for 2 and a half years under a residential lease. He gave his notice in January for a departure on 31 March.

On 1 April, we met for the exit inventory. I had prepared it myself, room by room, with the entry inventory in hand. After 45 minutes, Youssef refused to sign. His arguments: “The mark on the wall was already there,” “The parquet swelled because of humidity, it’s a construction issue,” “The holes in the wall are from picture hooks, that’s normal use.”

Total damage I identified: approximately 1,500 EUR. The rental deposit was 2,400 EUR (3 months, the property having an EPC rating of F). Without a signature, the bank releases nothing. Complete deadlock.

April 2025 — the independent expert

On 7 April, I sent Youssef a registered letter: proposal to bring in a certified expert to carry out a contradictory inventory. Estimated cost: 375 EUR, shared 50/50 as the law provides.

Youssef did not respond within 10 days. On 17 April, I instructed Mrs Piron, a certified property expert in Namur, to carry out an inspection on 22 April. I summoned Youssef by registered letter, 5 days in advance.

Youssef attended. The expert inspected the property for 2 hours, with photographic evidence and the entry inventory in hand. Her report was clear:

• Confirmed tenant damage: 12 unfilled holes (beyond normal picture hook use), deep scratches on the living room parquet, a burn mark on the worktop
• Normal wear and tear: slightly yellowed paint in bedrooms, worn bathroom joints
• Repair costs: 1,150 EUR

The expert ruled: the swollen parquet was indeed a structural humidity issue, not attributable to the tenant. On this point, Youssef was right.

May 2025 — the negotiation

On 5 May, I sent Youssef a formal notice with the expert report attached. I proposed: release of 1,250 EUR of the deposit in his favour, retention of 1,150 EUR for repairs.

Youssef still contested two items (the picture hook holes, which he considered normal use). The expert report was clear on this point: 4 standard picture hook holes constitute normal use, but 12 holes, some 8 mm in diameter, do not.

After an exchange of emails, Youssef accepted the expert report. He knew that in the event of proceedings before the justice of the peace, the expert report would carry authority. He preferred to avoid additional costs and delays.

14 May 2025 — the agreement

On 14 May, we signed the deposit release agreement:

• 1,150 EUR withheld for repairs (paid into my account)
• 1,250 EUR released in Youssef’s favour
• Expert fees: 187.50 EUR each

Total duration of the deadlock: 6 weeks. Without the expert, we would probably still be negotiating, or before the justice of the peace for an additional 4 to 6 months. To manage the documents for this procedure, I centralised everything using a rental management software.

What I learned

This 6-week deadlock changed my practices:

1. An entry inventory by an expert is non-negotiable. Since this experience, I systematically call on an independent expert for both entry AND exit. The cost (300-400 EUR shared) is negligible compared to potential disputes.

2. Distinguish normal use from damage. Standard picture hook holes, paint that yellows, joints that age: that is normal wear and tear after 2-3 years. Do not claim more than what is justified — it lends credibility to your legitimate claims.

3. The expert decides, not emotion. Youssef and I were each convinced we were right. The expert proved each of us wrong on certain points. That is the strength of a neutral third party.

For landlords facing similar situations: My tenant is damaging the property, My landlord refuses to return the deposit and My tenant has not paid for 3 months.