A BILL to amend and reenact § 55.1-1203 of the Code of Virginia, relating to Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act; adverse action by landlord; tenant remedies.
HB1078 amends § 55.1-1203 of the Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, which governs rental applications, application deposits, application fees, and information landlords may request from prospective tenants. The bill keeps existing rules allowing landlords to charge a refundable application deposit and a capped application fee, and it preserves the current requirement that landlords consider evidence that an applicant is a victim of family abuse when that status helps explain or mitigate a low credit score. It also retains the existing tenant-remedy structure, including recovery of actual damages and attorney fees for violations.
The main substantive change is in the subsection addressing landlord "adverse action" against applicants with prior eviction-related cases. Under the bill, landlords with more than four rental units or a significant interest in more than four units could not deny an application, raise rent or the security deposit, or impose more restrictive lease terms based on dismissed or nonsuited unlawful detainer cases, and the bill also references cases eligible for expungement. The bill would also adjust the statutory damages available for violations of this subsection, with bracketed language showing a proposed reduction from $1,000 to $250, and it includes bracketed language clarifying that landlords may still lawfully consider rental payment history.
HB1078 would amend Virginia landlord-tenant law by narrowing when landlords may take adverse action against rental applicants based on certain eviction records and by defining the remedies available to applicants who are improperly denied housing. It would affect landlords who own more than four rental dwelling units or have more than a 10 percent interest in more than four units, as well as prospective tenants with dismissed, nonsuited, or expungement-eligible unlawful detainer cases. The bill also preserves and reinforces existing application-fee, deposit, and tenant-protection provisions in § 55.1-1203.
The bill appears to have been framed as a tenant-protection measure, with its focus on limiting the use of certain eviction records and preserving remedies for applicants harmed by improper landlord conduct. At the same time, the bracketed amendments suggest some effort to narrow or soften the proposal, particularly by reducing statutory damages and clarifying that rental payment history may still be considered. No vote record or committee transcript is provided, and the bill was left in General Laws and Technology, so the available context does not show a final consensus or recorded floor sentiment.
The likely points of contention are whether landlords should be barred from considering dismissed, nonsuited, or expungement-eligible eviction cases when screening tenants, and how much liability should attach if they do. Tenant advocates would likely support the restriction as a fair-housing and second-chance measure, while landlord interests may object that it limits screening discretion and increases risk. The bracketed changes also indicate disagreement over the scope of protected records and the amount of statutory damages, with the bill text showing possible compromise language on both issues.