On September 11, the transition period will end, and the obligation imposed on developers to publish complete information on property prices will officially come into force. The undeniable advantage of this regulation is that buyers will gain access to this data without having to submit individual inquiries. However, some doubts remain regarding the interpretation of these provisions and the very definition of an “offered apartment.”
According to the so-called Developers Act, a residential unit was supposed to be removed from the list of available properties once sold. Meanwhile, the price transparency law assumes full openness toward clients. This raises a key question: should developers also include already sold units in their listings, properly marked as such? If so, another issue arises: should they display the last asking price or the final transaction price? There is no clear resolution on this matter yet.
The Role of Price Comparison
Another issue concerns the price comparison function. In principle, developers’ websites and the government portal dane.gov.pl should display all available apartments with prices assigned directly to each unit. The idea was that consolidating all this data in one place would enable buyers to compare prices.
In practice, this condition cannot be met. The reason lies in how data is published on dane.gov.pl: they differ in format, update methodology, and processing techniques. It is neither a systematized nor a structured database, not even a uniform dataset, which makes comparisons impossible. Moreover, no search engine for individual apartments has been planned. As a result, buyers can only monitor asking prices for individual units, not compare them across the market.
It is also important to stress that these are asking prices only. Clients have no access to the actual transaction values at which properties were sold. That discussion runs separately. Transaction prices are intended to be disclosed on the forthcoming Housing Transaction Data Portal (DOM), covering both the primary and secondary markets. While developers are responsible for disclosing asking prices, the DOM Portal is to be managed by the Developers Guarantee Fund (DFG), which would gain special rights to collect data not only from county offices but also from notaries and tax authorities. Another assumption is that data will be aggregated at the level of six transactions. The government has already completed its work on this project.
RCN Data and Public Access
At the same time, some groups are lobbying for free access to one of the DOM Portal’s data sources. Currently, this information is available only through the Real Estate Price Register (RCN), which requires payment. But the issue is not just about fees. Making RCN data public would mean presenting it as it is currently handled by counties—highly inconsistently. Some enter all transactions, others only part; some do so immediately, others with delays.
Such unregulated access to transactional data would produce very precise asking prices, but transaction records would appear irregularly and incompletely. This would not provide a full picture of the market. Moreover, if a transaction failed to appear when expected, there would be no body to which objections could be submitted. This is bound to spark new controversies and debates.
GDPR Concerns
Another issue relates to GDPR. Would we want the purchase price of a specific property to be disclosed and potentially linked directly to the buyer? Today, EU regulations protect us from this by prohibiting the linking of personal data with individual transactions. These requirements are precisely what the DOM Portal is meant to meet, with professionals responsible for compliance.
Therefore, it is simply not true that making the RCN public could replace the DOM Portal, which has been in development for so long. Such a solution would only satisfy those seeking quick access to information, but often without understanding how many factors contribute to a property’s price.
Financing the DOM Portal
Naturally, the question of financing arises. The DOM Portal will be funded from the Developers Guarantee Fund. It is important to note that the DFG is financed through contributions collected from each transaction—but only those carried out on the primary market. This is a significant weakness of the project.
Impact on Average Prices
Turning back to the transparency of asking prices, it is worth noting that until now, developers often avoided disclosing prices of their most expensive apartments, which were sold through direct channels. Exclusivity was part of their sales and marketing strategy. Once these are published, the average listed price of available units will rise. Does that mean housing prices are going up? No. An increase in the average asking price does not equal a rise in overall market prices. It simply reflects the fact that newly listed apartments are more expensive. It does not mean that a property viewed six months ago has suddenly become more expensive.
This situation is evident in the Tri-City area, where average asking prices have recently been rising faster than in any other market. Between April and August, they increased by 11%, reaching 16,800 PLN per square meter. During this five-month period, developers introduced 3,100 apartments for sale at an average of 17,700 PLN per square meter. Meanwhile, 2,300 units were sold at an average of 15,500 PLN per square meter.
A similar situation may soon occur in other markets, such as Warsaw, where we recently saw a slight return of average asking prices to earlier levels. If apartments previously hidden from listings are now added, the average price may rise again.
To reiterate: the disclosure of asking prices is a step toward greater transparency, long awaited by the market. It is good that it is finally coming into effect. We can only hope that the legislative shortcomings will be corrected in practice.
Author: Katarzyna Kuniewicz, Head of Market Research at Otodom
Source: CEO.com.pl
