The Subcontractor Is Claiming Payment Directly From the Client: What Should You Do?

You’ve paid your invoice to the general contractor in full. The site is finished, or nearly so. Then a letter arrives: a subcontractor, one you sometimes never even knew existed, is demanding payment for work they say was never settled by the main contractor. The situation feels confusing, often unjust, and raises a genuine legal question: do you have to pay twice?

The problem: an unexpected claim after you’ve already paid in full

This scenario comes up regularly in our expert assessments across Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur. The client signed a contract with a general contractor, who brought in one or more subcontractors for part of the work (electrical, plumbing, waterproofing), and the client, often, was never informed of this subcontracting arrangement nor signed any contract with the subcontractor. When the main contractor fails to pay its subcontractor, due to bankruptcy, cash-flow trouble, or an internal dispute, the subcontractor can turn directly to the end client for payment. The amount claimed then comes on top of what has already been paid, creating the feeling of being charged twice for the same work.

The legal basis for this claim is Article 1799-1 of the French Civil Code, which sets out a direct action by the subcontractor against the client (maître d’ouvrage) under specific conditions. But this action is not automatically valid: it is governed by Law No. 75-1334 of 31 December 1975 on subcontracting, and its effectiveness largely depends on whether the main contractor complied with certain obligations.

Why this happens

The 1975 law requires the main contractor to have each subcontractor approved by the client and to have their payment terms accepted (Article 3). This obligation is far too often ignored on site: the contractor brings in subcontractors without informing the client, sometimes for simplicity, sometimes to hide a margin or avoid a refusal. The client only discovers the subcontractor’s existence when that subcontractor comes forward over unpaid work.

In practical terms, the direct action under Article 1799-1 of the Civil Code requires that the subcontractor have formally given notice to the main contractor to pay, and that this notice went unanswered for more than one month. The subcontractor can then act directly against the client, but only up to the amount the client still owes the main contractor at the time of the claim. This is a point often misunderstood: if the client has already paid their invoice in full before receiving the subcontractor’s claim, their debt to the main contractor is extinguished, and in principle, the direct action can no longer succeed against sums already paid in good faith. However, if amounts are still owed to the main contractor, they can be claimed by the unpaid subcontractor.

The difficulty is compounded when the subcontractor was never approved by the client (a legal obligation that nonetheless falls on the main contractor): their position remains fragile but not necessarily without recourse. Case law has held that the direct action can still be exercised even without approval, with the penalty for this failure falling more heavily on the main contractor than on the subcontractor.

What can be done

Faced with a claim of this kind, the first step is to establish a precise record of payments already made to the main contractor, with all supporting evidence (bank transfers, cashed cheques, settled invoices). This record will determine whether any sum remains genuinely available to the subcontractor. Next, check the formal conditions of the claim: prior formal notice to the main contractor, the one-month period having elapsed, and whether the amount claimed is consistent with the work actually carried out by that subcontractor.

To guard against this kind of situation in advance, it is advisable to require the main contractor to provide a list of planned subcontractors before work begins, and to keep written proof of any approval given. If there is any doubt about the reality of the work invoiced by the subcontractor or the quality of its execution, a technical site survey can verify whether the claim actually corresponds to work genuinely carried out and compliant with standards.

How the expert helps

In these cases, our role is twofold. First, we establish an objective technical record of the work carried out by the claiming subcontractor: the nature of the work, compliance with best practice, and whether it matches the amounts invoiced. It is not uncommon for a claim to overstate the volume or quality of work actually performed, which is an important argument for negotiation or defence. Second, we help reconstruct the site timeline, which is valuable for determining the amounts genuinely owed to the main contractor at the time of the claim, a central element in calculating the direct action.

With fifteen years of experience in public works and project management, we can quickly identify discrepancies between invoiced work and work actually carried out. Our report, independent of any building company, can be used to negotiate with the subcontractor, to challenge a disproportionate claim, or to support a defence before the Grasse judicial court or any other court with jurisdiction in your area.

Frequently asked questions

Do I have to pay the subcontractor if I’ve already paid the main contractor in full?
In principle, no, if the payment to the main contractor was made in good faith before the claim was raised. The direct action can only apply to sums still owed to the main contractor at the time of the formal notice.

The subcontractor was never approved by me, is their claim still valid?
The lack of approval is a failing on the main contractor’s part, but under case law it does not automatically deprive the subcontractor of their direct action. Each situation is assessed on a case-by-case basis.

What should I check first when I receive a claim?
Whether formal notice was sent beforehand to the main contractor, whether the one-month period has elapsed, and how much is still owed to the main contractor.

Can an expert verify that the claimed work matches what was actually done?
Yes, a technical assessment can verify the reality and compliance of the work invoiced by the subcontractor, an often decisive factor in negotiation or litigation.

Related reading

• Uninsured contractor
• Poor workmanship
• Contact

📅 Mis à jour le 25/09/2026 — Cassini Expertise, expert bâtiment indépendant (06·83·13·40).