An Act Concerning Protections For Residential Tenants.
HB 6943, titled "An Act Concerning Protections For Residential Tenants," revises several provisions of Connecticut landlord-tenant law to strengthen tenant protections and standardize rental practices. The bill requires landlords to provide receipts for cash rent payments and, upon request, copies of tenant ledgers or equivalent accountings showing charges, payments, and balances. It also preserves and expands limits on lease terms that cannot be imposed on tenants, including waivers of statutory rights, confession of judgment clauses, broad liability waivers, excessive attorney’s fees, early late fees, utility surcharges where utilities are included, and added charges for month-to-month tenancies or holdover occupancy.
The bill further changes rent-increase notice rules by requiring at least 45 days’ written notice before a rent increase takes effect, or a notice period equal to the lease term for leases of one month or less. In municipalities with fair rent commissions, the notice must inform tenants of their right to file a complaint. It also clarifies that a tenant’s silence does not count as agreement to the increase and confirms that rent cannot be raised during the lease term. Finally, the bill prohibits marketing residential lease forms in Connecticut that contain provisions contrary to state law and treats violations as unfair or deceptive trade practices under the state consumer protection law.
If enacted, the bill would amend sections 47a-3a, 47a-4, 47a-4e, and 47a-3 of the Connecticut General Statutes effective July 1, 2025. Its practical effect would be to increase disclosure and accounting obligations for landlords, limit the use of certain lease clauses, strengthen notice requirements for rent increases, and create a consumer-protection enforcement hook for unlawful lease forms. The bill would primarily affect residential landlords, tenants, property managers, and companies that draft or market lease templates for use in Connecticut.
The available voting history suggests the bill received generally favorable committee support, passing the Housing Committee as a Joint Favorable Substitute by a 12-6 vote. The bill’s structure and language indicate a tenant-protection approach, and the lack of recorded transcript debate limits insight into detailed floor or committee sentiment. Overall, the measure appears to have been viewed positively by a majority of committee members, with some opposition likely tied to concerns about added landlord compliance burdens and restrictions on lease terms.
The main points of contention are likely the bill’s limits on landlord contract terms and its expanded notice and disclosure requirements. Landlords and housing industry stakeholders may object to the prohibition on certain surcharges, the ban on lease provisions that waive tenant rights, the required 45-day rent-increase notice, and the classification of unlawful lease forms as unfair or deceptive trade practices. Tenant advocates, by contrast, would likely support the bill’s emphasis on transparency, predictable rent increases, and protection against coercive or unlawful lease language.