Relative to making electronic rent payments optional.
Summary
HB 309 makes electronic rent payments optional for residential leases in New Hampshire. The bill adds a new prohibited practice to RSA 540-A:3, barring landlords from requiring a tenant or prospective tenant to pay any amount due under a residential lease, renewal, or extension agreement solely by electronic funds transfer, including automatic recurring transfers. Landlords must offer at least one non-electronic payment method, such as a paper check, money order, or cash option if otherwise lawful.
The bill also amends the remedies section of the landlord-tenant law so that this new prohibition is treated differently from certain other prohibited practices under RSA 540-A. The act takes effect January 1, 2026. The fiscal note indicates the bill has a minimal state fiscal impact, estimated at less than $10,000 in each fiscal year from 2025 through 2028.
Impact
HB 309 would amend New Hampshire’s landlord-tenant statutes, specifically RSA 540-A:3 and RSA 540-A:4, to limit a landlord’s ability to mandate electronic funds transfer as the only method for rent or other lease payments. It creates a new tenant protection requiring at least one non-electronic payment option for residential lease obligations and adjusts the statutory remedies framework to account for violations of this new rule. The bill primarily affects landlords, property managers, tenants, and prospective tenants in the residential rental market.
Sentiment
The available context suggests generally favorable or at least noncontroversial treatment of the bill, with no recorded committee transcript debate or roll-call votes provided. The bill advanced through the legislative process and was amended by the Senate, indicating it received enough support to move forward. The fiscal note also suggests lawmakers viewed the measure as having negligible budgetary consequences.
Contention
The main policy issue is whether landlords should be allowed to require electronic-only rent payment systems. Supporters of the bill appear to favor preserving tenant choice and access to non-digital payment methods, which can matter for tenants without bank accounts, reliable internet access, or comfort with automated transfers. Potential opposition would likely come from landlords or property managers who prefer electronic payments for administrative efficiency, reduced processing costs, and predictable recurring payments. No specific recorded objections or amendments are included in the provided context.