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 building permit is granted to B.
A house is built on the plot, which B later sells to A with sole 100% ownership. B has never purchased the house in its entirety from anyone.
B‘s spouse said in criminal proceedings that the construction project was personal, not any company’s/contractor’s project.
In the sales brochure, B states that the house was built for themselves. The condition inspection report states 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 is not done, in which case Z = 0.
In the case of an approved final inspection, Z = 1.
The building permit expired on September 12, 2011.
The final inspection was conducted on October 9, 2020.
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. The purchase offer has a condition for taking effect, the content of which is that Z must be 1 for the condition to be fulfilled.
C acts as agent in the transaction. C verifies that Z has value 1 before the sale of X can be made.
D is an authority. D can, within the limits of its authority, give Z the value 1.
B and C assure that Z = 1. C writes the deed of sale for X because they believe with B that Z = 1.
The condition is no longer put in the deed of sale because the fulfillment of the purchase offer condition makes the condition unnecessary in the deed. B and C believe that the condition regarding Z no longer needs to be noted in the deed because Z is already 1.
Because the condition is fulfilled (Z = 1), A signs the deed of sale. Even before signing the deed, A requests that the condition also be included in the deed, but C refuses to put it there because it is unnecessary.
After the sale, it becomes clear that Z = 0 because D did not have the authority to set Z to value 1, even though it did so.
D was in a decisive position for 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 – protection that should have worked.
The purpose of the condition was to ensure that the building was legally completed and safe to inhabit.
Final Inspection Without Prerequisites
Naantali building control conducted the final inspection on October 9, 2020. But:
Obstacles to Final Inspection
- Building permit had expired – permit granted in 2006, but it expired according to Land Use and Building Act Section 143 after five years. Final inspection was conducted 9 years after expiration.
- No permit ever applied for basement floor – part of the building was built completely without a building permit.
- Foundation investigation not conducted – investigation required by Building Decree Section 49 was never performed.
- Approved structural plans missing – building control cannot present approved plans.
- Structural inspection impossible – allegedly conducted, but could not legally be done without structural plans.
- Construction work inspection document missing – document required by Land Use and Building Act Section 150 and Building Decree Section 77 was never prepared.
- Construction phase inspections missing – foundation inspection, chimney inspection, location inspection, plumbing and ventilation inspections not conducted.
- Electrical installation commissioning inspection not done – electrical system safety was never verified as required by law.
- Site supervisor missing – not applied for or appointed as required by Building Decree Section 70.
Land Use and Building Act Section 153 is unambiguous: final inspection may not be conducted until the building is complete and all inspections have been done.
Not a single one of these prerequisites was met.
Violated Laws and Regulations
Construction legislation was systematically violated in the construction project:
Land Use and Building Act
- Section 125 – Basement floor lacks building permit
- Section 131 – Building permit application did not meet requirements, foundation investigation missing
- Section 134 – Special plans not approved
- Section 143 – Building permit expired, extension not requested
- Section 149 – Construction supervision neglected
- Section 150 – Location and elevation do not meet permit conditions
- Section 153 – Final inspection approved without valid permit and mandatory inspections
- Section 180 – Legality of construction project neglected
Building Decree
- Section 49 – Foundation investigation not conducted
- Section 66 – Use and maintenance instructions missing
- Section 70 – Site supervisor not approved
- Section 76 – Documents and inspections deficient
- Section 77 – Inspection document completely missing
- Section 79 – Documents not maintained as required by law
Building Regulations (Finnish National Building Code)
- A1 3.4.1 – Final inspection did not verify compliance with legal requirements
- A1 6.2.2 – Inspections and document maintenance deficient
- A1 7.3.1 – Final inspection prerequisites not verified
- A1 10.1 – Safety and health regulations not followed
- A1 10.3 – Final inspection not requested during permit validity
- A1 10.5 – Compliance with building permit conditions not verified
Electrical Safety Act
- Section 17 – Commissioning inspection not conducted
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:
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.”
SAC says: cannot reverse because it is not appealable.
District Court says: cannot assess because it has not been reversed.
LähiTapiola says: matter belongs to 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 also initially made the same error as the District Court. But unlike the court, the insurance company corrected its decision when the error was pointed out.
No one investigates legality.
But an independent third party confirms: the matter belongs to District Court.
Condition Was Not Fulfilled
Final inspection requires a valid building permit. The building permit had expired. Mandatory inspections were missing. Part of the building was unauthorized. Construction legislation was systematically violated.
The final inspection was illegal.
An illegal final inspection cannot fulfill the sale’s condition for taking effect.
If the condition was not fulfilled, the sale did not occur.
According to the Contracts Act, a legal transaction whose condition for taking effect has not been fulfilled does not bind the parties. The non-fulfillment of the condition is not a question of interpretation – it is a fact.
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 →