relative to pet-related fees and rent in residential tenancies.
Summary
HB 1553 would create a new chapter in New Hampshire law governing pet-related charges in rental housing. It caps monthly pet rent at no more than 1% of the dwelling unit’s monthly rent, regardless of the number of pets, and prohibits landlords from charging nonrefundable pet fees. The bill also bars landlords from requiring any additional security deposit beyond what current law already allows.
The bill includes two key exceptions. It does not apply to service animals or support animals protected by disability law, and it preserves a landlord’s ability to enforce lease terms requiring a tenant to repair or pay for actual damage caused by a pet. It would also give tenants a private right of action to sue for violations and recover actual damages, reasonable attorney’s fees, and court costs, and it would take effect 60 days after enactment.
Impact
HB 1553 would add a new chapter, RSA 540-D, to New Hampshire’s landlord-tenant laws and directly regulate what landlords may charge for pets in residential tenancies. It would limit pet rent, prohibit nonrefundable pet fees, and reinforce existing limits on security deposits under RSA 540-A:6. The bill would affect landlords, tenants, and property managers by standardizing pet-related charges and creating enforceable tenant remedies in court.
Sentiment
The available record shows the bill was introduced and referred to the Housing Committee, but there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided here. Based on the bill text, the measure appears to be framed as tenant-protection and housing-stability legislation, suggesting support from advocates concerned about rental affordability and pet retention. No direct opposition is documented in the provided materials.
Contention
The main policy tension is between tenant affordability and landlord discretion. Supporters would likely favor the cap on pet rent and the ban on nonrefundable pet fees as protections against excessive or unpredictable housing costs, while landlords may object that the bill limits their ability to price for risk, cover administrative costs, or deter pet-related damage. Another point of potential contention is the 1% cap itself, which may be viewed as too restrictive by property owners but insufficient by tenant advocates if pet charges remain a barrier. The bill’s exceptions for service and support animals and for actual pet damage are designed to address some landlord and disability-law concerns.
Creating a public county registry of the monthly rent charged by landlords for each owned unit and prohibiting landlords from using algorithms or software to determine rental rates.