An Act Concerning A Landlord's Ability To Enter A Dwelling Unit.
Summary
HB 6949 amends Connecticut landlord-tenant law to clarify when a landlord may enter a rented dwelling unit. The bill states that a tenant may not unreasonably withhold consent for entry when the landlord needs to inspect the premises, make repairs or improvements, provide services, or show the unit to prospective or actual purchasers, mortgagees, tenants, workmen, or contractors. It further defines unreasonable withholding of consent to include a tenant refusing entry for 14 or more consecutive days.
The bill also preserves existing limits on landlord access. A landlord may enter without tenant consent in an emergency, but otherwise must give reasonable written or oral notice, enter only at reasonable times, and may not abuse the right of entry or use it to harass the tenant. The bill also restates that entry without consent is allowed only in limited circumstances, including emergency, court order, abandonment or surrender, or as otherwise permitted by related statute.
Impact
This bill would amend Section 47a-16 of the Connecticut General Statutes, effective July 1, 2025, by adding a specific definition of when a tenant is deemed to unreasonably withhold consent to entry. The change is intended to give landlords clearer authority to access units for legitimate property-related purposes while maintaining tenant protections against harassment and unauthorized entry. It affects landlord-tenant relationships, property managers, and tenants by tightening the rules around access and clarifying enforcement expectations.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill was generally well received in committee, passing the Housing Committee as a Joint Favorable Substitute by a 17-1 vote. No transcript discussion was provided, but the strong vote indicates broad support for clarifying landlord access rights. The near-unanimous committee result also suggests the bill was viewed as a practical adjustment rather than a major policy shift.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the balance between landlord access and tenant privacy. Supporters are likely to favor the bill for clarifying when entry may occur and preventing tenants from indefinitely blocking access, while critics may worry that defining refusal after 14 days as unreasonable could reduce tenant control over their home or create opportunities for overuse of entry rights. The bill attempts to address those concerns by retaining notice, reasonable-time, emergency, and anti-harassment protections.