An Act Concerning Domestic Violence And Tenant Screening.
Summary
HB 5360 revises Connecticut landlord-tenant law governing tenant screening and rental application charges. It keeps the general prohibition on landlords charging prospective tenants most application-related fees, while expressly allowing a tenant screening report fee capped at $50 plus a CPI-based annual adjustment set by the Commissioner of Housing. If a landlord charges that fee, the bill requires the landlord to provide the applicant with either a copy of the screening report or information needed to obtain it, along with the receipt or invoice from the screening provider.
The bill also adds a new anti-discrimination protection for victims of domestic violence. A landlord may not deny rental housing based on credit history if the applicant is a domestic violence victim, and the applicant may prove that status with a counselor letter, a police report, or a qualifying protective order. A landlord that violates this provision is liable for actual damages, including refunded application-related charges, plus attorney’s fees.
Impact
The bill amends General Statutes section 47a-4d, effective October 1, 2026, and changes the legal rules governing rental application fees, tenant screening disclosures, and housing decisions based on credit history. It creates a specific statutory exception protecting domestic violence survivors from adverse rental decisions tied to credit damage caused by abuse, and it exposes landlords to damages and attorney’s fees for violations. It also formalizes documentation and disclosure requirements for tenant screening fees, affecting landlords, screening companies, and prospective tenants statewide.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill was generally well received in committee, passing the Housing Committee on a 14-4 joint favorable substitute vote. The absence of recorded transcript discussion limits insight into detailed debate, but the favorable vote indicates majority support for both the tenant fee transparency provisions and the domestic violence protections. The narrower dissent likely reflects concern about landlord compliance burdens, fee restrictions, or the scope of the new credit-history limitation.
Contention
The main points of contention are likely to be the new restriction on denying housing based on credit history when the applicant is a domestic violence victim, and the added liability for landlords who violate that rule. Landlords and housing industry stakeholders may object to the documentation standards, damages exposure, and attorney’s fees provision, while tenant advocates and domestic violence service providers would support the added protections and transparency. The fee cap and disclosure requirements for tenant screening reports may also be debated as either consumer protections or administrative burdens.