Connecticut Tenant Rent Ledger Request Law 2025

Section 3 of Public Act 25-146 repealed the prior version of Connecticut General Statutes section 47a-3a and replaced it, adding a new subsection giving occupants a direct right to their own account records. The statute's own text is short and direct: upon request by an occupant, the landlord shall provide such occupant with a copy of the ledger or equivalent accounting for the occupant's dwelling unit, showing charges assessed, payments made, and any balance owed or surplus paid by such occupant.

[Cite: Public Act 25-146, section 3, amending Connecticut General Statutes section 47a-3a(d)]

That's the entire operative language. There's no separate definitions section, no procedural form the request has to take, and no requirement that the request be made in writing rather than verbally, based on the statutory text itself.

The statute deliberately doesn't require a specific document format. It covers a ledger or an equivalent accounting, which gives a landlord some flexibility in how records are kept, spreadsheet, property management software export, handwritten log, as long as whatever's produced actually shows the three required elements: charges assessed, payments made, and the resulting balance owed or surplus paid.

[Cite: Connecticut General Statutes section 47a-3a(d)]

A landlord using modern property management software likely already generates something that satisfies this requirement as a standard report. A landlord keeping less formal records needs to be able to reconstruct those three elements for a specific unit on request, even without a dedicated ledger document already prepared.

This is worth stating plainly rather than glossing over: the statute doesn't specify how quickly a landlord has to respond to a ledger request. There's no 10-day, 15-day, or 30-day window written into the law, unlike some of Connecticut's other tenant-facing disclosure requirements that do carry explicit response deadlines.

[Cite: Public Act 25-146, section 3]

That absence isn't a drafting oversight worth second-guessing; it's simply how the statute was written. In practice, this means the obligation is open-ended rather than time-boxed. A landlord who delays excessively without a specific reason could still face other exposure, unreasonable delay potentially reads as functional noncompliance, but there's no statutory clock a tenant or their attorney could point to as having run out.

Similarly, the statute doesn't cap how many times an occupant can request this accounting. A tenant could, based on the text alone, ask monthly, or after every payment, without running into a statutory limit on request frequency.

[Cite: Public Act 25-146, section 3]

For a landlord managing a large portfolio, this is worth building into an operational process rather than treating each request as a one-off task. A tenant relations policy that assumes occasional requests, rather than one designed around a fixed annual or biannual cadence, better matches what the statute actually allows.

Unlike several other Connecticut housing provisions enacted around the same period, which carry an explicit civil penalty, often tied to a month's rent, this section doesn't attach a specific penalty for a landlord who fails to comply. The statutory text simply states the obligation without a stated consequence for violating it.

[Cite: Public Act 25-146, section 3]

That doesn't mean noncompliance is risk-free. A landlord's failure to produce requested records could still become relevant in other contexts, a security deposit dispute, a nonpayment eviction defense, or a broader claim about a landlord's recordkeeping practices, even without this specific section spelling out its own penalty. It simply means this provision doesn't create its own dedicated enforcement mechanism the way some neighboring statutes do.

Section 3 didn't only add the ledger right. The repealed-and-replaced version of section 47a-3a also preserves two existing rules. Rent remains payable without demand or notice at the time and place the parties agreed to, and unless otherwise agreed, periodic rent is payable at the beginning of each term. Separately, a landlord who receives a cash payment from an occupant has to provide a receipt stating the date of payment, the amount received, and the purpose of the payment.

[Cite: Public Act 25-146, section 3, amending Connecticut General Statutes section 47a-3a(a)-(c)]

These aren't new requirements; they carried over from the prior version of the statute. They're worth including here because the ledger right sits inside the same section, and a landlord's cash-receipt practice under subsection (c) directly feeds into what the ledger under subsection (d) should actually reflect.

The statute uses the term "occupant" rather than "tenant" throughout this section, consistent with how Connecticut's landlord-tenant statutes are generally worded. This isn't a meaningful narrowing; it's the standard terminology this part of the Connecticut General Statutes uses, and it functions the same way a reference to "tenant" would in describing who holds the rights described.

[Cite: Connecticut General Statutes section 47a-3a]

This provision is narrower and simpler than some of the other Connecticut landlord obligations enacted around the same time, which carry specific deadlines, penalty amounts, and detailed procedural requirements. This one is a single, direct entitlement: ask, and the landlord has to provide the accounting. There's no separate form, no advance notice period, and no registration or publication requirement on the state's part.

[Cite: Public Act 25-146, section 3]

For a property manager already building compliance processes around Connecticut's other recent housing changes, this is a comparatively low-effort addition: it requires having accessible, accurate per-unit financial records ready to produce, not a new form, notice, or disclosure document to design.

The practical starting point is confirming that whatever system tracks charges, payments, and balances for each unit can actually generate a clean, accurate record on short notice, in whatever format is easiest to produce, since the statute doesn't dictate a specific format. A landlord relying on scattered records across bank statements, spreadsheets, and paper receipts is in a weaker position to respond promptly than one with a centralized ledger per unit.

Because there's no statutory deadline, setting an internal target response time, and sticking to it consistently across tenants, is a reasonable way to manage this obligation without waiting for a dispute to force the issue. Given the absence of a specific frequency cap, that same internal process should be able to handle a tenant who asks more than once without treating each repeat request as unusual or as grounds for pushback.