Prepared for the Office of Governor Kelly A. Ayotte · June 2026
A regulated path to “yes” for the almost-qualified renter
HB 1336-FN creates the Regulated Conditional Deposit — a capped, refundable, consumer-protected instrument that lets a landlord approve a marginal applicant whom fair-housing-compliant screening would otherwise force them to deny. It compels no one, costs the state nothing, and preserves the one-month deposit cap as the default rule.
Executive summary
HB 1336-FN creates a new financial instrument called a Regulated Conditional Deposit (RCD) that may be used as a compensating factor by rental applicants who may otherwise face denial of housing. An RCD is an enhanced security deposit of up to one additional month’s rent, available only when an applicant fails one of five enumerated statutory conditions that were disclosed before — or with — the rental application. The bill preserves the existing one-month security-deposit cap as the default rule for all qualified applicants. It does not compel any landlord to accept an RCD or approve any applicant, and it appropriates no state money.
The bill solves a narrow but real housing-access problem. Under current law, professional landlords often must deny applicants who are close to qualifying, because fair-housing compliance requires consistent screening while the one-month deposit cap removes the industry’s most common alternate approval mechanism. Enhanced deposits are already legal for owner-occupants of small multifamily buildings and certain single-family rentals — with none of this bill’s guardrails. HB 1336-FN extends that existing practice to the professional segment and surrounds it with disclosure rules, a statutory notice safe harbor, re-screening and refund rights, third-party-payor protections, and express Consumer Protection Act enforcement.
It also converts charitable deposit assistance from a one-way grant into revolving working capital: refunds can flow back to the family, employer, charity, or municipality that funded the deposit, so the same dollar can serve household after household. The Senate amendment guarantees that municipal welfare funds advanced as deposits return directly to the municipality.
The bill passed the House (OTP/A, March 11, 2026), the Senate (14–9, May 14, 2026), and House concurrence (180–162, May 21, 2026). It is supported by the New Hampshire Residential Property Owners Association and the Apartment Association of New Hampshire; New Hampshire Legal Assistance moved from opposition to neutral on the amended bill. The author respectfully recommends that the Governor sign HB 1336-FN into law.
At a glance
An RCD is available only when an applicant fails one of five enumerated, statutorily capped conditions — and every use of one carries the same set of protections. Tap or click any citation for the statutory text.
The five eligibility gates
RSA 540-A:9, IIEach gate requires that the unmet criterion was disclosed before — or with — the application, and each is capped so it cannot be widened to reach ordinary applicants.
-
a
Credit score. Available only where the landlord’s minimum is 650 or below — beneath New Hampshire’s 697–738 averages. A stricter floor forfeits the RCD on credit grounds.II(a)
-
b
Income. Requires household income above 350% of the federal poverty guideline ($75,740 in 2026, household of two) and a landlord requirement no stricter than 3× rent — shielding the affordable segment entirely.II(b)
-
c
Prior evictions. A judgment is required — filings and dismissals don’t count, and enumerated no-fault grounds (lease expiration, renovation, sale, lead abatement, and more) are excluded.II(c)
-
d
Unpaid judgments. Reaches only judgments issued within seven years, and demonstrated payment-plan compliance removes the criterion entirely.II(d)
-
e
References. Both the present and most recent prior landlord references are unverifiable — the “Catch-22” gate for first-time and returning renters.II(e)
The protections on every RCD
RSA 540-A:9The same consumer-protection architecture attaches to every Regulated Conditional Deposit, regardless of which gate opened the door.
-
cap
One additional month, maximum. Refundable, held under the security-deposit trust-accounting rules, and payable in installments where the landlord agrees.540-A:5, V
-
tell
Criteria disclosed up front. Approval criteria must be provided before or with the application and any fees — eliminating post-hoc justification of an enhanced deposit.II
-
form
Written notice, statutory form. The notice must identify the specific failed criterion, the re-screening right, and any fee; a check-box safe-harbor form in the statute satisfies it.IV–V
-
cure
Re-screening and refund. Tenants may re-screen every 6 months (credit, income, evictions, judgments) or 12 (references); on passing, refund or rent credit within 30 days.VI
-
teeth
Consumer Protection Act enforcement. Misuse is a CPA violation: actual damages or $1,000, whichever is greater; 2–3× for willful violations; plus costs and attorneys’ fees.540-A:8, I(c)
The numbers behind the design
Three pieces of arithmetic anchor the bill’s architecture — the credit inflection point, the income floor that shields the affordable segment, and the revolving-capital effect on charitable deposit assistance.
Why 650? The eviction-risk inflection point
Empirical eviction rate by TransUnion ResidentScore tier (~200 rental properties)
Risk rises sharply and non-linearly below 650 — the tier where a refundable buffer matters most. Source: TransUnion ResidentScore research, cited in House testimony (Jan 27, 2026). See §7.
The income floor shields the affordable market
FY2026 two-bedroom Fair Market Rents vs. the $2,104 income-RCD threshold
Income-based RCDs are mathematically unavailable below ≈$2,104/month rent — above every NH one-bedroom FMR and above two-bedroom FMRs in 9 of 12 areas. *Hillsborough County (part). Source: NHHFA FY2026 FMRs; see Appendix A.
Revolving capital: ~1,546 more families housed
Cumulative households served per $1M annual charitable inflow, 10-year horizon
Refunds return to the funding charity and are redeployed; by year 10, annual capacity is ≈2.3× the grant baseline at central assumptions. Full model in §4.5 and the Rental Assistance Capital Model.
How it works in practice
Nine examples from §6 of the analysis. Names are placeholders; every mechanism cited is in the bill. Tap or click a citation to read the statutory text.
Read the full analysis by topic
The Comprehensive Policy Analysis, in order. Safeguards (§5) and the answered objections (§9) are part of the analysis and read in sequence.
Executive Summary
The instrument, the problem, the five gates, the safeguards, and the procedural posture — in four paragraphs.
The Bill’s Policy Architecture
The RCD definition, the five enumerated eligibility conditions, bilateral optionality and the anti-circumvention rule, disclosure, re-screening, installments, and CPA enforcement.
The Problem the Bill Solves
The marginal-renter profile, the fair-housing constraint that drives consistent denial under current law, and who the bill is — and is not — designed for.
Existing Law & the Advance-Rent Comparison
Why multi-month prepaid rent under existing law is the relevant comparator — and why the RCD is the more disciplined, more disclosed, more refundable instrument.
Third-Party Payors & Revolving Capital
How refunds flow back to funders, the new §4.5 capital-efficiency model — about 1,546 additional families per $1M of annual charitable inflow over ten years — and who can be a payor.
Safeguards & Incentive Alignment
The full safeguards inventory — fifteen numbered protections — and how the incentives of applicants, landlords, payors, and the state line up against abuse.
Practical Examples
All nine examples in full: credit setbacks, thin files, income shortfalls, returning renters, and every form of third-party funding.
The Allocation of Rental Risk
The five places marginal rental risk can go, why removing tools yields denial rather than absorption, and the eviction-risk data behind the 650 cap.
Legislative & Stakeholder History
Origin, the House hearing and amendments, the Senate Commerce amendment protecting municipal welfare, the floor debate, and the bill’s current procedural posture.
Principal Objections
Sixteen objections from the legislative record — each stated in its strongest form, each answered on the merits.
Acknowledgements & Closing Note
The sponsors, industry and tenant-advocate collaborators, and stakeholders whose work shaped the final bill — plus the closing recommendation and Appendix A.
Interactive & source materials
Everything cited in the analysis, plus the live model.
Rental Assistance Capital Model
Live model of the third-party-payor refund mechanism's impact on charitable deposit-assistance capital over a 10-year horizon. Edit any assumption; everything recomputes.
Safeguards Against Normalization
The seven-page memo prepared for the Senate: why the structural protections prevent two-month deposits from becoming a market default.
Bill Text & Source Documents
Bill text in all three versions, hearing transcripts, the capital model spreadsheet, the full analysis, and the Senate memo PDF.