Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act; adverse action by landlord, tenant remedies.
Summary
SB815 amends the Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act to regulate how landlords may screen rental applicants and to create tenant remedies when a landlord takes certain adverse actions. The bill keeps the existing framework for application deposits and fees, including refund timing and the ability to recover wrongfully withheld amounts and attorney fees, and it preserves the rule that application fees generally may not exceed $50, or $32 for public housing or HUD-regulated housing, exclusive of third-party screening costs.
The bill adds or strengthens several tenant-protection provisions. Landlords must consider evidence that an applicant is a victim of family abuse when evaluating a low credit score, and applicants who show that status through specified documentation may recover damages and fees if the landlord fails to comply. Most notably, landlords who own more than four rental dwelling units, or more than a 10 percent interest in more than four units, may not deny an application, raise the security deposit or rent, or impose stricter lease terms based on dismissed or nonsuited unlawful detainer cases or cases eligible for expungement. A tenant harmed by such adverse action may recover actual damages, a $1,000 statutory award, and attorney fees.
Impact
The bill directly amends § 55.1-1203 of the Code of Virginia, expanding the Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act’s applicant-screening rules and adding a new cause of action for improper adverse action by larger landlords. It affects landlords, prospective tenants, and housing providers by limiting the use of certain eviction-related records in rental decisions, requiring consideration of family-abuse-related credit issues, and increasing potential liability through damages and attorney-fee awards. The measure also reinforces existing limits on application fees and deposit handling, while tying remedies to violations of the new screening restrictions.
Sentiment
The voting history suggests the bill was generally supported but not without opposition. It cleared Senate committee and floor votes by comfortable margins, but the House vote was much closer, indicating more divided views in the lower chamber. The final agreement on the House amendment by the Senate indicates the bill ultimately retained enough bipartisan or cross-faction support to become law, though the narrower House margin points to meaningful concern among some legislators about its effects on landlords and rental screening practices.
Contention
The main points of contention appear to center on the balance between tenant protections and landlord discretion. Supporters likely viewed the bill as preventing unfair punishment of applicants for dismissed or expungable eviction cases and for credit problems tied to family abuse, while opponents likely worried it would restrict landlords’ ability to assess risk, increase compliance burdens, and expose them to litigation and damages. The most sensitive provision is the prohibition on adverse action based on certain unlawful detainer histories, especially because it applies only to landlords above a size threshold, which may have been seen as either a targeted consumer protection or an intrusion into private housing decisions.