Three questions resolve everything.
Answer them in order. Each is essential for the next.
Three Questions
The entire matter reduces to three logical questions. Answer them in order.
Question 1: Who is the builder?
B buys a plot and becomes the plot owner and holder. B applies for a building permit for the plot. The authorities grant the building permit to B.
A house rises on the plot, which B later sells to A with sole 100% ownership. Notably, B has never purchased the house in its entirety from anyone.
B‘s spouse stated in criminal proceedings that the construction project was personal – not any company’s or contractor’s project.
Furthermore, in the sales brochure, B states that the house was built for themselves. The condition inspection report also confirms that the owner is the builder.
Is B the builder?
Question 2: What is the value of Z?
Z is the final inspection.
By default, the final inspection does not happen, in which case Z = 0.
In the case of an approved final inspection, Z = 1.
The building permit expired on September 12, 2011.
Building control conducted the final inspection on October 9, 2020 – nine years after the permit expired.
What is the value of Z?
Question 3: Did sale X occur?
There are four actors: A (buyer), B (seller), C (agent), D (authority).
A makes a conditional purchase offer to B for X. Specifically, the purchase offer has a condition for taking effect: Z must equal 1 for the condition to be fulfilled.
C acts as agent in the transaction. Before the sale of X can proceed, C must verify that Z has value 1.
D is an authority. Within the limits of its authority, D can give Z the value 1.
Both B and C assure that Z = 1. As a result, C writes the deed of sale for X because they believe – together with B – that Z = 1.
The condition no longer appears in the deed of sale because the fulfillment of the purchase offer condition makes it unnecessary. B and C believe that the condition regarding Z no longer needs mention in the deed, since Z is already 1.
Because the condition is fulfilled (Z = 1), A signs the deed of sale. Even before signing, A requests that the condition also appear in the deed, but C refuses – it is unnecessary, in their view.
After the sale, it becomes clear that Z = 0 because D lacked the authority to set Z to value 1, even though it did so.
D held a decisive role in causing the deed of sale to be signed.
Did sale X ever occur?
Purchase Offer Condition
Our purchase offer contained a clear condition: the sale occurs only if the property has an approved final inspection.
We did not want to buy a house that authorities had not inspected and approved. This was a conscious choice – specifically, a protection that should have worked.
The purpose of the condition was therefore to ensure that the building was legally complete and safe to inhabit. Without that assurance, we would not have signed the deed.
The condition existed precisely to prevent what happened.
Final Inspection Without Prerequisites
Naantali building control conducted the final inspection on October 9, 2020. However, the inspection had no legal basis, for the following reasons.
What the builder omitted
Obstacles to Final Inspection
- Building permit had expired – The city granted the permit in 2006, but it expired under Land Use and Building Act Section 143 after five years. The builder never requested an extension. Building control then conducted the final inspection nine years after the permit expired.
- Basement floor lacked any permit – The builder constructed part of the building entirely without a building permit.
- Foundation investigation never performed – The builder omitted the investigation required by Building Decree Section 49.
- Approved structural plans missing – Building control cannot present approved plans, because the builder never obtained them.
- Structural inspection legally impossible – Building control allegedly conducted this inspection, yet it could not legally take place without approved structural plans.
- Construction work inspection document never prepared – The builder failed to produce the document required by Land Use and Building Act Section 150 and Building Decree Section 77.
- Construction phase inspections missing – The builder omitted the foundation inspection, chimney inspection, location inspection, and plumbing and ventilation inspections.
- Electrical installation commissioning inspection never done – No one verified the electrical system’s safety as required by law.
- Site supervisor never appointed – The builder neither applied for nor appointed a site supervisor as required by Building Decree Section 70.
What the law requires
Land Use and Building Act Section 153 is unambiguous: the authority may not conduct a final inspection until the building is complete and all required inspections are done.
In this case, not a single one of these prerequisites existed. Nevertheless, building control approved the final inspection.
Not one prerequisite was met.
Violated Laws and Regulations
The builder systematically violated construction legislation throughout the project. Furthermore, building control approved a final inspection that the law did not permit. The violations span four separate bodies of law.
National legislation
Land Use and Building Act
- Section 125 – The builder constructed the basement floor without a building permit
- Section 131 – The builder’s building permit application did not meet requirements; the foundation investigation was missing
- Section 134 – The builder never obtained approval for special plans
- Section 143 – The building permit expired, and the builder never requested an extension
- Section 149 – The builder neglected construction supervision
- Section 150 – Location and elevation do not meet the permit conditions
- Section 153 – Building control approved the final inspection without a valid permit and without the mandatory inspections
- Section 180 – The builder neglected the legality of the construction project
Building Decree
- Section 49 – The builder never conducted the required foundation investigation
- Section 66 – Use and maintenance instructions are missing
- Section 70 – The builder never applied for or obtained an approved site supervisor
- Section 76 – Documents and inspections are deficient
- Section 77 – The builder never prepared the required inspection document
- Section 79 – The builder did not maintain documents as required by law
Technical regulations
Building Regulations (Finnish National Building Code)
- A1 3.4.1 – The final inspection did not verify compliance with legal requirements
- A1 6.2.2 – Inspections and document maintenance are deficient
- A1 7.3.1 – Building control did not verify the final inspection prerequisites
- A1 10.1 – The builder did not follow safety and health regulations
- A1 10.3 – No one requested the final inspection during the permit’s validity
- A1 10.5 – Building control did not verify compliance with building permit conditions
Electrical Safety Act
- Section 17 – No one conducted the required commissioning inspection
This is not a question of interpretation. These are facts.
Legal Protection Dead End
When we tried to have the legality of the final inspection investigated, we encountered a perfect circle. Each authority pointed to another, and none examined the substance.
Circular Reasoning
- Supreme Administrative Court: “Final inspection is not an appealable decision. We cannot reverse it.”
- District Court: “We cannot assess the legality of the final inspection because the administrative court has not reversed it.”
- LähiTapiola (independent): “The matter belongs to District Court – it concerns a damages case that could be brought before the District Court.”
The SAC cannot reverse the decision because the law does not treat it as appealable. The District Court, however, will not assess it because the SAC has not reversed it. Meanwhile, LähiTapiola – an independent professional risk assessor – concludes that the matter belongs to the District Court.
Insurance Company Confirmation: Jurisdictional Ambiguity is Real
LähiTapiola Southwest Finland made a decision on January 15, 2026 that reveals a structural problem in the legal system.
Insurance company’s original decision, October 29, 2025:
“Assessment of supervisory authority’s jurisdiction would belong to the administrative court’s authority, whereby the matter in question could not be brought before the District Court.”
Corrected decision, January 15, 2026 (after correction request):
“We compensate necessary and reasonable legal and litigation costs arising from handling your case insofar as the matter concerns a damages case against the City of Naantali that could be brought before the District Court.”
When a professional actor who assesses legal risk daily disagrees with the court about where the matter belongs – there is a structural problem in the legal system.
Noteworthy: the insurance company initially made the same error as the District Court. Unlike the court, however, the insurance company corrected its decision when the error was pointed out.
No one investigates legality.
Yet an independent third party confirms: the matter belongs to District Court.
Condition Was Not Fulfilled
A valid final inspection requires a valid building permit. In this case, the building permit had expired nine years before building control conducted the inspection. Furthermore, the builder had omitted every mandatory inspection, part of the building lacked any permit, and the builder had systematically violated construction legislation throughout the project.
As a result, the final inspection was illegal.
An illegal final inspection cannot fulfill the condition that the sale required to take effect. Therefore, if the condition was not fulfilled, the sale did not occur.
The non-fulfillment of the condition is not a question of interpretation – it is a fact.
According to the Contracts Act, a legal transaction whose condition for taking effect has not been fulfilled does not bind the parties. The condition in our purchase offer required an approved final inspection. No such inspection legally existed. Consequently, the sale never took effect.
This is the legal core of the matter.
Everything else – the authority chain, appeals, years of work – stems from the fact that no one investigates these three questions.
Read the authority chain →