A BILL to amend and reenact §§ 8.01-226.12, 55.1-1220, and 55.1-1231 of the Code of Virginia, relating to Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act; duties of landlord; mold remediation; civil penalty.
HB79 amends the Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, specifically the section governing actions to enforce the chapter. The bill clarifies that tenants and other affected persons may bring civil actions for injunctions and damages in circuit court when a landlord or other party violates the Act. It also states that a landlord’s duties to maintain a premises in a fit and habitable condition are duties imposed by law to protect the life, health, safety, and property of tenants, authorized occupants, guests, and invitees, and that landlords must exercise ordinary care in making required repairs and maintenance without unreasonable delay.
The bill further broadens the definition of recoverable damages under the Act. It provides that damages include all forms of compensatory damages available under Virginia law, including economic and noneconomic losses when proven. A person harmed by a violation may recover actual damages or $500, whichever is greater, and if the violation is found to be willful, damages may be increased up to three times actual damages or $1,000, whichever is greater. In practical terms, the measure strengthens enforcement tools for tenants and increases potential liability for landlords who fail to comply with statutory duties or rental-agreement repair obligations.
HB79 would affect Virginia landlord-tenant law by expanding and clarifying remedies available for violations of the Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. It would reinforce landlords’ statutory duty to maintain habitable premises and could increase exposure to civil damages, including noneconomic losses and enhanced damages for willful violations. The bill would primarily affect landlords, tenants, property managers, and courts handling housing-condition disputes, and it would likely be relevant in cases involving repairs, habitability, and other landlord compliance issues.
The available context suggests the bill was generally viewed as a housing-consumer protection measure, with its focus on tenant remedies and landlord accountability. However, the bill was not advanced and was continued to the next session in the House General Laws Committee by voice vote, indicating that it did not receive enough support for immediate passage. The lack of recorded votes or transcripts limits the ability to identify detailed support or opposition arguments, but the procedural outcome suggests at least some hesitation or unresolved concerns among committee members.
The main points of contention likely center on the scope of landlord liability and the bill’s expansion of damages. Supporters would be expected to favor stronger tenant enforcement rights, broader compensatory damages, and clearer obligations for timely repairs and habitability. Opponents or skeptics would likely be concerned about increased litigation, higher financial exposure for landlords, and the possibility that broader damage remedies could raise housing costs or create uncertainty in enforcement. Because no committee transcript is available, the specific arguments and sponsors of those concerns are not identified in the record provided.