May 21, 2025 The Sejm adopted the Senate’s amendments to the Act amending the Act on the Protection of the Rights of the Purchaser of a Residential Unit or a Single-Family House and the Developer Guarantee Fund and the Act on Competition and Consumer Protection (known in the media as the „act on transparency of housing prices”) and submitted the Act to the President for signature.

The basic assumption of the act is that the developer must inform on its website and on a special government portal (dane.gov.pl) – throughout the entire sales period – about: (i) the price per 1 m2 of offered residential units or single-family houses, (ii) the price of the associated rooms, if it is not included in the price of the premises or house (e.g. the price of a basement, storage room, garage), (iii) other payments,  which the buyer is obliged to make in the performance of the sales agreement.

The data will have to be updated every 24 hours, and a breach of the above obligations will constitute a practice violating the collective interests of consumers, for which penalties may be imposed by the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection.

Publishing prices will be important not only for information. The act provides that in the event of a discrepancy between the price quoted and the price offered at the conclusion of the contract, the buyer will have the right to demand the conclusion of a real estate sale agreement at the most advantageous price for him /her.

The legislator’s intention is to improve the negotiating position of potential buyers who currently have difficulties in obtaining information about the prices offered by developers of premises or single-family houses. Such information is mostly not provided in advertisements or announcements, and finding out the price often requires a meeting at the developer’s office. According to the legislator, incomplete information provided by developers is also a problem, as in initial talks with clients they may not indicate to the client the additional fees required in connection with the conclusion of the contract.

The direction of the changes itself should be assessed positively, because the adopted solutions will increase transparency on the market and enable potential buyers to compare offers faster and easier. However, when you delve into the details, it turns out that the act is not fully developed – many provisions have been formulated in a general or ambiguous way, which may cause problems of interpretation.

Suffice it to mention that the act passed by the Sejm before the Senate’s amendments contained an error (the word „respectively” was missing), which meant that the obligation to provide information about prices did not apply to the sale of units in buildings under construction, but only to the sale of already completed units (which, according to the data of the Polish Association of Developers, accounted for only 12% of the primary market). In other words, the obligations introduced by the act were illusory, because they did not cover 88% of transactions on the primary market!

This particular error was corrected by the Senate, but there are still other potential problems of a practical nature – including, in particular, the buyer’s claim under the new Article 19a(6) of the Developer Act (i.e. the claim to conclude the contract at the most advantageous price in the event of a difference between the price specified and the price offered at the conclusion of the contract). The act does not explain what „the most advantageous price” means, especially since the developer is obliged to update prices once a day throughout the entire sales period (is it e.g. the historically lowest price listed on the website at that time)?  In addition, the buyer’s claim itself may be difficult to enforce, because if the developer does not agree to conclude the contract at the most advantageous price, the buyer is left with only a long-term lawsuit to oblige the developer to conclude a contract for a specific price.

Developers also face risks – some statutory obligations are not entirely precise and leave some room for interpretation, while the sanction for their violation is very severe – Office of Competition and Consumer Protection may impose a fine of up to 10% of the developer’s annual turnover.

As a result, despite the directionally positive regulation, we are dealing with another legal act which, in our opinion, due to its legislative shortcomings, will generate legal problems in the future.