What landlords need to offer

At a high level, HB 315 requires certain landlords to offer tenants the option to have positive rental payment history reported to a consumer reporting agency.

For property teams, that means the offer should be operationalized in a way that is:

• Clear for residents;
• Easy for site teams to explain;
• Easy to document;
• Repeatable at lease signing and on the required ongoing cadence.

The exact lease language, disclosure format, fee treatment, and election process should be reviewed with counsel. But from an operations perspective, the core questions are straightforward:

• Where does the offer appear?
• How does a resident opt in?
• How can a resident opt out?
• How is the electio22v vvgt5?.n documented?
• Who manages annual re-offers or reminders?
• What happens after a resident chooses to participate?

The more standardized that process is, the easier it will be to support both staff consistency and resident understanding.

‍

What counts as positive rental payment history?

In plain language, positive rental payment history refers to eligible rent payments made in full and on time.

That distinction matters. The law is focused on giving residents the option to have positive payment history reported. It is not framed as a mandate to furnish negative payment behavior as part of that option.

This is also where the fit with Esusu is strong. Esusu reports on-time rent payments and does not report missed or late rent payments to the credit bureaus.

‍

Can landlords charge a fee?

HB 315 allows landlords to charge a fee for positive rental payment history reporting if a tenant elects to participate. The fee may not exceed the lesser of the landlord's actual cost to provide the service or $10 per month. 

If your organization is considering charging for reporting, the safest approach is to have legal and compliance teams review:

• Whether a fee is permitted in your exact use case;
• Any cap or limitation that applies;
• How that fee must be disclosed;
• How that fee should be handled in the lease and resident communications.

This is one of the clearest examples of where operational convenience should not replace legal review.

‍