This is one of the few situations where a trade business holds immediate leverage: keeping the thing until it is paid. The French Civil Code allows it, but on precise conditions, and retention exercised badly turns against the workshop — forced return of the vehicle, plus damages.
Yes: the French Civil Code allows a person to whom a thing has been handed over to retain it until their claim is paid (article 2286), and a depositary to retain the deposit until full payment of what is owed by reason of that deposit (article 1948). But the claim must have arisen in connection with the vehicle being retained — a link the Court of Cassation requires — and retention is lost by voluntarily giving the thing up.
The answer does not come from a text specific to car repair, but from general French civil law. Two articles of the Civil Code overlap, and it helps to know which one you are relying on.
Article 2286, as drafted by the Act of 4 August 2008, states that a right of retention over a thing may be relied on by:
A vehicle handed over for repair falls under the first case, and an invoice for labour and parts under the third. The same article adds a limit that matters as much as the principle: the right of retention is lost by voluntarily giving the thing up. Handing back the keys, even under pressure or as a goodwill gesture, extinguishes the leverage: there is no retroactive retention.
Article 1948 says the same thing about deposit, in one sentence: the depositary may retain the deposit until full payment of what is owed by reason of the deposit. This is the text the Court of Cassation applies to garages, because keeping the vehicle during the work is a deposit — more on that below, under storage charges.
Retaining a vehicle is not a step in the chasing process: it is a position of strength you hold before the keys go back, and which disappears afterwards. The standard recovery steps — reminder, formal notice, order for payment — are set out in our guide on chasing an unpaid invoice.
Retention is not a general licence to keep whatever happens to be in the workshop. Three conditions apply together, and it is the third that defeats most contested retentions.
In the words of the Court of Cassation, the right of retention is a consequence of holding the thing. It therefore requires physical possession, and it is extinguished by voluntarily giving the thing up (article 2286). A vehicle already handed back can no longer be retained, and no contract clause revives that right after the fact.
You retain the vehicle to obtain payment of what is owed to you. It still has to be owed: work the customer never ordered does not ground a retention. The DGCCRF leaflet puts it to consumers in these terms — check against the repair order that you are not being billed for repairs or products you did not ask for, and you are entitled to refuse to pay for them. Hence the practical value of a repair order or an accepted estimate, which records what was ordered.
This is the decisive condition. The First Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation set it out in a judgment published in its bulletin on 7 January 1992: the right of retention may be exercised by any holder whose claim arose in connection with the thing retained, so that a link exists between that claim and that thing (appeal no. 90-14.545, applying article 1948).
In practice: the invoice behind the retention must concern that vehicle. Keeping the car on the lift to get paid for last month's work on another car belonging to the same customer falls outside the rule. In that case, the court of appeal was overturned for rejecting retention on the ground that the garage had named a single debtor: the Court of Cassation held that this reasoning could not stand, since the claim had arisen in connection with the vehicle.
The same judgment of 7 January 1992 sets out how far the right goes: the right of retention over a thing, as a consequence of holding it, is a real right, enforceable against everyone, including third parties who do not owe the debt. The wording is strong and should be read both ways.
In the workshop's favour: in that case the vehicle — a collector's car — belonged to someone who was not the debtor for the work, and the Court held that retention was nonetheless enforceable against them. So a workshop does not lose its right simply because the owner of the vehicle is not the person who ordered the job. That is worth noting on files where the order comes from a fleet company, a leasing firm or an insurer.
On the limits, two points should be stated plainly.
The conditions and effects of retention are assessed by the courts case by case. On a file that stalls — abandoned vehicle, large claim, owner untraceable — a lawyer or a judicial commissioner is the right door. We are not lawyers, and this article is not legal advice.
In practice, retention is rarely argued over a flat refusal to pay. It is argued over a dispute: the customer considers the work substandard, or the amount higher than what was quoted.
The position the DGCCRF communicates to consumers is clear, and worth knowing because your customer may well have read it: where the quality of the work or the amount of the invoice is disputed, you have to pay in order to get your car back, and you should pay while writing your reservations on the invoice and its copy.
In other words, a dispute does not excuse the customer from paying to take the vehicle away: it is formalised in written reservations, which open the discussion afterwards. For the workshop, two practical consequences:
The same leaflet also recalls two duties borne by the repairer: an obligation of result, a duty to put the vehicle entrusted to them back into working order, and a duty to hand back a car on which all safety-related work has been done. Retaining a vehicle whose safety work is unfinished is therefore a bad idea on every count.
The second question always follows the first: can you charge for the space taken up by a vehicle that never leaves? On the principle, case law favours the workshop, subject to a display requirement that is often overlooked.
In a judgment published in its bulletin on 8 October 2009, the First Civil Chamber overturned a ruling that had dismissed a garage's claim for storage charges on the ground that no storage contract had been concluded between the parties. Applying article 1915 of the Civil Code, the Court held that a contract of deposit of a vehicle with a garage exists, as an accessory to the contract for works, independently of any storage agreement (appeal no. 08-20.048). No separate custody contract therefore needs to be signed.
A judgment published on 5 April 2005 points the same way, applying article 1928: a contract of deposit of a vehicle with a garage, accessory to a contract for works, is presumed to be made for payment, and it was for the owner of the vehicle to prove that the contract was free of charge (appeal no. 02-16.926). The burden of proof therefore falls on the customer, not on the workshop.
What remains is price-display regulation, and this is where inspections are strict. The Order of 27 March 1987 governs price display for servicing and repair, roadworthiness testing, breakdown assistance and towing, as well as vehicle storage: storage is squarely within its scope.
In its survey published on 4 June 2026, the DGCCRF flags exactly this failing: tariffs were recurrently not displayed for services that are nonetheless invoiced to consumers as a matter of course, such as diagnostic charges, storage charges and labour. Many displays were also incomplete or illegible, and invoices insufficiently detailed as to the nature and price of the work carried out.
The practical rule fits in one line: a storage rate that is not displayed is a rate that is hard to claim, and a rate invented on the day the vehicle gets in the way is the most contestable of all. Display it alongside your labour rates, before you need it.
Keeping the vehicle means continuing to answer for it. The classification as a deposit, which grounds storage charges, has its counterpart: the depositary must take care of the thing. A vehicle retained for months, outdoors, that deteriorates or disappears, is a risk borne by the workshop and not by the customer.
The DGCCRF confirms that trying to contract out of that liability does not work: among the clauses flagged as questionable or unlawful in its 2026 survey are clauses limiting liability in the event of theft of, or damage to, the vehicle.
A few reflexes, then, before deciding to retain:
The survey published on 4 June 2026 covers 1,600 garages, car centres and dealerships inspected in 2024: close to 40% of establishments showed failings that led to corrective or enforcement action — nearly 500 compliance injunctions, over 220 administrative or criminal reports, and over 580 warnings. The SignalConso platform received, in 2025, more than 10,000 reports about car servicing and repair.
Among the contractual documents examined, three clauses are named as questionable or unlawful. They are worth a re-read of your terms of sale, because they bear directly on this subject.
| Clause flagged | Why it is a problem |
|---|---|
| Fixed late-payment indemnity applied to a private customer | The DGCCRF notes that such indemnities are reserved for business customers. The EUR 40 indemnity cannot be claimed from a private individual. |
| Clause limiting liability in the event of theft of, or damage to, the vehicle | Flagged as questionable or unlawful. It will not relieve you of answering for a vehicle you are keeping. |
| Clause allowing free invoicing regardless of the estimate or the repair order | Flagged as questionable or unlawful. It also weakens the very claim on which a retention would rest. |
Two useful and lawful statements, by contrast, are prepared in advance: the storage rate within your displayed prices, and a reminder that the vehicle is handed back against payment. The first is a price-display obligation; the second does not create the right of retention — that comes from the law — but it avoids surprises.
IZZI DEVIS is voice-driven workshop management software for mechanical, auto body, motorcycle and electrical trade businesses. On this subject it plays no part in retention itself: it builds the file that records what is owed. Factually:
What it does not do: it does not decide for you whether to retain a vehicle, it does not draft a formal notice, it takes no court action, and it collects no money from private individuals — your customers' payments go through your own payment channels. A photographic condition report at intake and handover is not yet in the product. The full feature list is on the garage management software page, and the recovery steps are in our guide on chasing an unpaid invoice.
The Court of Cassation requires a connection: the right of retention is exercised by a holder whose claim arose in connection with the thing retained (First Civil Chamber, 7 January 1992, no. 90-14.545, published in the bulletin). An invoice that arose in connection with another vehicle does not meet that condition. If a specific file leaves you in doubt, have a lawyer check it.
No. Article 2286 of the French Civil Code is explicit: the right of retention is lost by voluntarily giving the thing up. Once the keys are back with the customer, the leverage is gone and recovery follows its normal course: reminder, formal notice, then a procedure.
The Court of Cassation held that the right of retention is a real right, enforceable against everyone, including third parties who do not owe the debt (First Civil Chamber, 7 January 1992, no. 90-14.545). In that case the vehicle belonged to someone who was not the debtor for the work. The assessment remains with the courts, case by case.
No. For the Court of Cassation, a contract of deposit of a vehicle with a garage exists as an accessory to the contract for works, independently of any storage agreement (First Civil Chamber, 8 October 2009, no. 08-20.048), and that deposit is presumed to be made for payment (5 April 2005, no. 02-16.926). The storage rate does, however, fall within the Order of 27 March 1987 on price display, and the DGCCRF flags its recurrent absence from displays.
The DGCCRF leaflet tells consumers that where the quality of the work or the amount of the invoice is disputed, they have to pay in order to get the car back, writing their reservations on the invoice and its copy. In practice, accepting those reservations lets the customer leave and moves the discussion onto the documents in the file: accepted estimate, signed repair order, annotated invoice.
This article is general information, up to date as of 5 November 2026. It does not replace advice from your accountant or legal adviser.
The IZZI DEVIS team
Designs and builds IZZI DEVIS, the voice-driven workshop management software for independent garages.
When payment falls due, late payment interest, the EUR 40 indemnity, the reminder, the formal notice, then the recovery routes.
Mileage, itemised breakdown, description of parts, the €25 threshold, general details and the new 2026-2027 details: the full list for a garage.
2026-2027 timeline, approved platform, private customers, new invoice details and penalties: the essentials for a garage.
The costs to cover, the hours you can genuinely bill, the margin, and the duty to display rates including VAT.
14-day free trial, no credit card, no commitment.
Start my free trial