Free Pennsylvania Lead Paint Disclosure

A Pennsylvania lead paint disclosure is the federally mandated form a landlord delivers to a prospective tenant before any lease of residential property built before 1978. It carries the fixed federal lead warning statement, states the lessor’s actual knowledge of lead-based paint and hazards, lists the records being handed over, documents the tenant’s receipt of the EPA pamphlet Protect Your Family From Lead in Your Home, captures any agent’s acknowledgment, and is signed and dated by every party. Authority is 42 U.S.C. 4852d (Section 1018 of Title X, the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992), implemented at 40 CFR Part 745 Subpart F (EPA) and 24 CFR Part 35 Subpart A (HUD). Pennsylvania imposes no separate statewide lead paint disclosure statute — but Philadelphia does, and it is the strictest rental lead regime of any large American city. Generate the form below, then read on for exactly what the rule requires and where Philadelphia changes the answer.

▶ Watch overview

Pennsylvania lead paint disclosure overview

The lead paint disclosure, often called the Section 1018 disclosure after the 1992 statute that created it, is the formal federally required notice a Pennsylvania landlord delivers to a prospective tenant for any residential property built before 1978. It does four things in one document.

First, it puts the tenant on notice of potential lead exposure through the federally mandated lead warning statement — prescribed wording at 40 CFR 745.113(b)(1) — that must be attached to or inserted into the lease.

Second, it transmits the lessor’s actual knowledge of lead-based paint or lead-based paint hazards in the dwelling. The lessor checks one of two boxes: known lead-based paint or hazards are present, with an explanation, or the lessor has no knowledge. There is no third option and no “maybe”.

Third, it transmits the records. Any inspection report, risk assessment, or hazard-reduction record the lessor holds must be listed and copied to the lessee, or the lessor must affirmatively state that none are available.

Fourth, it documents receipt of both the disclosure and the EPA pamphlet, and captures the certification of accuracy signed by every party. That signed acknowledgment is the landlord’s primary defence in any later EPA or HUD inquiry or private civil action.

The disclosure is not optional and the requirements are not waivable by agreement. A pre-1978 Pennsylvania rental leased without a signed lead paint disclosure exposes the landlord to federal civil penalties and to a tenant’s private action for treble damages plus fees. Compliance costs a few minutes; non-compliance is expensive. Our Pennsylvania landlord-tenant law overview puts this duty in context with the rest of the Commonwealth’s rental rules.

No. Pennsylvania adds no statewide lead paint disclosure statute of its own; the landlord’s disclosure duty in Pennsylvania is entirely federal. That is a genuinely useful answer, and it is worth stating plainly because almost every page that ranks for a Pennsylvania lead-paint query implies otherwise while never managing to name a Pennsylvania statute. There is no Pennsylvania analogue to the federal rule. There is no statewide rental lead registry, no statewide de-leading mandate, and no statewide lead certificate.

The Pennsylvania statute people find when they go looking is the Lead Certification Act, 35 P.S. 5901 and following, administered through the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry’s Lead-Based Paint Occupation Accreditation and Certification Regulations. It is an occupational licensing law. It governs who is accredited to perform lead inspections, risk assessments, and abatement work in the Commonwealth — the professionals — and it imposes no disclosure obligation on a landlord at all. It matters to you only indirectly: it is the reason the phrase “Pennsylvania-certified inspector-risk assessor” appears in Philadelphia’s ordinance, because the city borrows the state’s professional credential to define who may issue a certificate.

What Pennsylvania does contribute is adjacent, not duplicative. The implied warranty of habitability, established in Pugh v. Holmes, 486 Pa. 272 (1979), applies independently to deteriorated paint and to conditions that make a unit unfit — a duty covered in our Pennsylvania habitability laws guide. And the real Pennsylvania lead story is municipal: Philadelphia operates one of the most demanding rental lead regimes in the country, and other Pennsylvania municipalities have followed.

If your rental is in Philadelphia and was built before March 1978, the federal disclosure on this page is necessary but not sufficient. Philadelphia Code Chapter 6-800, the Lead Paint Disclosure and Certification law, requires something the federal rule never does: proof, from a qualified professional, that the property is actually lead free or lead safe — delivered to the tenant before the lease is signed.

The operative language is at Philadelphia Code 6-803(3)(a): no lessor shall enter into a lease agreement with a lessee, other than a renewal lease, to rent any Targeted Housing unless the lessor provides the lessee with a valid certification prepared by a certified lead inspector stating that the property is either lead free or lead safe, and the lessee acknowledges receipt of the certification by signing a copy.

What counts as Targeted Housing

Philadelphia’s definition at 6-802(12) is residential property built before March 1978, excluding four categories: dwelling units developed by or for an educational institution for exclusive student occupancy; buildings whose units are leased only to enrolled college or university students; units owned or subsidised by the Philadelphia Housing Authority or its subsidiaries, or privately owned but currently leased under the Housing Choice Voucher Program (those are subject to HUD requirements instead); and units in which children aged six and under do not and will not reside during the lease term.

Lead free versus lead safe — two different certificates

The ordinance defines both terms, and the difference decides how often you repeat the exercise.

Lead free (6-802(8)) means the interior and exterior surfaces of the property contain no lead-based paint and the property contains no lead-contaminated soil or lead-contaminated dust. It is a statement about the building’s fabric. A property that has no lead-based paint cannot acquire it, so a lead-free certification carries no time limit on the inspection date and does not expire.

Lead safe (6-802(9)) means the property is free of a condition that causes or may cause exposure to lead — from lead-contaminated dust or soil, from deteriorated lead-based paint, from deteriorated presumed lead-based paint, or from a similar threat arising from the property’s condition. It is a statement about the property’s current state, not its fabric, and states can change. So it expires. A lead-safe certification must rest on an inspection performed no more than 24 months before the lease is entered into (6-802(13)); the Health Department’s administrative guidance is that certificates completed after 1 February 2020 are valid for four years.

What a lead-safe certificate must actually say is spelled out at 6-803(3)(b): the certified inspector determined the property or unit was free of any deteriorated paint, and interior dust samples were collected in compliance with EPA regulations including 40 CFR 745.227, were tested, and were found not to contain lead-contaminated dust. The ordinance adds a line landlords should welcome — additional statements or test results are not required.

Who may issue the certificate

Not you, unless you happen to hold the credential. The city accepts a person certified by the Philadelphia Department of Public Health to conduct comprehensive lead inspections and risk assessments; a Commonwealth-certified “inspector-risk assessor” under the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry’s Lead-Based Paint Occupation Accreditation and Certification Regulations; or an EPA-certified lead dust sampling technician (6-802(1)). The Health Department is explicit that a hardware-store test kit does not satisfy the requirement, and equally explicit that there is no prohibition on a landlord or their staff performing the test if that person personally holds the certification.

What you must do after the lease is signed

The duty does not end at delivery. Under 6-803(3)(c) the lessor must, upon entering into the lease, provide a copy of the signed certification to the Department of Public Health, and give the tenant a written notification advising them to perform a visual inspection of painted surfaces periodically during the term and telling them they may report cracked, flaking, chipping, peeling, or otherwise deteriorated paint to the lessor. Once notified, the lessor must promptly inspect and correct the defective condition as required by section PM-305.3 of the Philadelphia Property Maintenance Code. Certificates and dust-wipe results are submitted through the city’s Lead Certification Submission Site.

The teeth

This is where Philadelphia stops resembling the federal rule. Code 6-809(4) provides that a lessor who does not comply with 6-803(3)(a) is denied the right to collect rent during or for the period of noncompliance. Not reduced rent. No rent. On top of that, 6-809(3) lets a prevailing lessee obtain an order compelling the lessor to certify and to perform the work needed to make the property lead safe; damages for harm caused by the failure to certify; exemplary damages of up to 2,000 dollars; abatement and refund of rent for any period the lessee occupied the property without a certificate; and attorney’s fees and costs. Section 6-811 sets a penalty of up to 2,000 dollars per offence, with each day of non-compliance a separate offence.

Two further pressure points make this real rather than theoretical. Under PM-102.1.1 of the Property Maintenance Code, certifying compliance with 6-803 is a condition of getting and renewing a housing inspection licence, and a licence may be revoked for a false certification. And the Health Department advises that owners may be prohibited from evicting the tenant while a compliance matter is pending — so a missing certificate can quietly disarm your possession remedy at the worst possible moment. If you are relying on eviction as a backstop, read our Pennsylvania eviction notice laws guide alongside this one.

Some practical Philadelphia edge cases

• Multi-unit buildings. If you rent multiple units under one rental licence, you need a certificate for each unit, with the dust-wipe results or inspection report uploaded for each.
• Demolished and rebuilt. A property that was rebuilt or remodelled still needs a certificate. Only a property completely built after February 1978 is exempt, and you must submit documentation proving the build date.
• Condominium units. A single condo unit can be certified lead free where the unit plus common areas and hallways test lead free.
• Failed dust wipe. The area must be corrected by a certified renovator, after which the technician confirms surfaces are intact and re-takes wipes of the failed areas.
• Tenant refuses entry for testing. Contact the tenant in writing by email or post and submit a copy of that notification, with proof of receipt, to the Health Department.
• Family childcare facilities. A dust-wipe test and certification are still required, and results are uploaded the same way.

Most pages describe the lessor’s disclosure loosely. The regulation is not loose. 40 CFR 745.113(b) enumerates exactly six things a lease disclosure must contain, and a disclosure carrying all six is compliant regardless of layout. Notice what is not among them.

There is no inspection-opportunity element. Not one of the six gives a tenant a period to inspect, and not one asks a tenant to acknowledge that they received or waived such a period. That item exists — but it lives at 40 CFR 745.113(a)(5), which is the sales disclosure. That single regulatory neighbour is the origin of nearly every defective rental lead form in circulation: someone copied the sales list onto a lease form and never checked which subsection they were in.

Element (5) is the one that trips up managed portfolios. Any agent engaged by the lessor must confirm they informed the lessor of the obligations under 42 U.S.C. 4852d and that they are aware of their own responsibility to ensure compliance. That item is unconditional: if a management company signed you up, it applies.

The lessee’s agent is different. The EPA lessor form carries a footnote making the lessee’s-agent item conditional on that agent receiving compensation from the lessor. An agent representing the tenant, paid by the tenant, is outside the item. Where no agent is involved at all, the item is marked not applicable rather than left ambiguously blank — an empty line invites the argument that an agent existed and simply did not sign.

“Target housing” is the federal term of art for property subject to the rule, and 40 CFR 745.103, as amended effective 13 January 2025 (89 FR 89416), defines it in a single sentence worth reading exactly as written: “Target housing means any housing constructed prior to 1978, except housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities or any 0-bedroom dwelling (unless any child who is less than 6 years of age resides or is expected to reside in such housing).” So the trigger is construction prior to 1978 — in practice, before 1 January 1978 — subject to two narrow carve-outs, and since the 2025 amendment the child-occupancy condition applies to both. Note where the parenthetical now sits: it follows the words “or any 0-bedroom dwelling”, so it qualifies the whole except-clause rather than the elderly limb alone. We take that up under the exemptions below.

Why 1978, and a distinction most pages get wrong

The historical rationale is the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s ban on lead-containing paint, at 16 CFR 1303.1, which covers paint manufactured after 27 February 1978. That is the background fact. It is not the trigger. The operative trigger for your disclosure duty is the target-housing definition at 40 CFR 745.103 and its “constructed prior to 1978” line. The two dates are close enough that writers routinely blur them, and the blur produces confident nonsense about a “February 1978 federal cut-off”. Keep them separate: 1303.1 explains why the rule exists; 745.103 tells you whether it applies to you.

Philadelphia, meanwhile, drew its own line at before March 1978 (6-802(12)), and the Health Department’s landlord guidance likewise treats property built after February 1978 as exempt from certification. So a Philadelphia landlord is working with two adjacent but distinct cut-offs at once, and the safe course for any early-1978 building is to satisfy both.

How to verify the build year

County assessor records, the original certificate of occupancy, building permits, and title records all establish it. The lessor carries the burden of correctly identifying target housing, and an honest mistake is still a violation. A property substantially renovated after 1977 but originally built earlier remains target housing — the original construction date controls. Gutting a 1910 rowhouse to the studs in 2001 does not make it a 2001 building for this purpose. This is worth emphasising because a surprising number of pages state it backwards, telling landlords that a substantial renovation resets the clock. It does not: 745.103 asks when the housing was constructed, and nothing in the rule lets later work re-date it.

Common areas in multi-unit buildings

If a multi-unit building was built before 1978, the disclosure reaches the common areas as well as the leased unit. Hallways, stairwells, laundry rooms, and shared porches are within scope, and records from building-wide evaluations covering those areas are records you must list and hand over — even though they are not about the four walls the tenant is renting.

The exemptions live in two different places, and conflating them is a classic error. 40 CFR 745.101 carries the transaction-level exemptions; 40 CFR 745.103 carries the definitional exclusions built into target housing itself.

The transaction exemptions at 745.101 are:

• Short-term leases. Leases of 100 days or less where no renewal or extension can occur. A 90-day corporate let with no option qualifies; a 90-day lease that rolls month-to-month afterwards does not.
• Lease renewals. Renewal of an existing lease where the lessor has already disclosed all information required under 745.107 and where no new information described in 745.107 has come into the lessor’s possession. Both conditions must hold. Watch the cross-reference: 745.101(d) points at 745.107 — the substantive duty to hand over the pamphlet, disclose known lead-based paint, and provide records — and not at 745.113(b), which governs the certification and acknowledgment elements. Pages that cite 745.113(b) for this exemption have followed the wrong thread. 745.101(d) also defines renewal generously: it “shall include both renegotiation of existing lease terms and/or ratification of a new lease”, so renegotiating the rent with a sitting tenant is a renewal for this purpose rather than a fresh lease that forfeits the exemption.
• Sales at foreclosure. A sales-side exemption; a purchaser who later leases the property inherits the full lessor duty.
• Certified lead-free housing. Housing found to be free of lead-based paint by an inspector certified under the federal certification programme. Keep the certification.

The definitional exclusions at 745.103 are zero-bedroom dwellings — defined as a dwelling in which the living area is not separated from the sleeping area, which the rule says includes efficiencies, studio apartments, dormitory housing, military barracks, and rentals of individual rooms — and housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities. Since the 13 January 2025 amendment (89 FR 89416), both exclusions are lost when a child under six resides or is expected to reside there. The zero-bedroom exclusion is now conditional, not unconditional. These sit inside the target-housing definition itself rather than beside it, so a unit that qualifies was never target housing to begin with — there is no transaction to exempt.

Federal law requires the lessor to give the prospective lessee the EPA pamphlet Protect Your Family From Lead in Your Home before the lessee is obligated under the lease. The pamphlet is mandatory and specific — substituting your own lead handout, a printout from a blog, or a city flyer does not satisfy it.

Where to get it. It is published jointly by EPA, HUD, and the CPSC and is free at epa.gov/lead, in English and as Para Proteger A Su Familia Del Plomo En El Hogar in Spanish.

Language. The disclosure must be provided in the language of the contract. An English lease takes the English pamphlet; a Spanish lease takes the Spanish one. If you market and negotiate in a language and then produce an English-only disclosure, you have created an argument you do not want to have.

Delivery. Hand delivery with the lessee initialling receipt is the gold standard. Electronic delivery is permitted subject to the conditions discussed below. A link is not delivery. Posting the pamphlet on your website or dropping a URL into an email does not discharge the duty — the document itself must reach the tenant.

Retention. Note in your file which pamphlet edition you delivered and when. The lessee’s signed acknowledgment on the disclosure is your proof of receipt.

This is the cleanest illustration of how differently the two layers behave, and it is worth stating in one sentence: the federal rule makes you disclose what you know; Philadelphia makes you find out.

Federally, there is no duty to test. EPA states plainly that the rule does not require sellers or landlords to test or remove lead-based paint or lead-based paint hazards. The rule compels disclosure of actual knowledge, not investigation. If a unit has never been tested and you hold no reports, “no knowledge” is the honest and correct answer, and checking it is not an admission of anything.

What you may not do is check “no knowledge” while sitting on information. If you hold a report, if a prior abatement was done, if you were told a child in the unit had an elevated blood-lead result, or if you simply know the porch has been shedding paint for two years — that is knowledge, and “no knowledge” becomes a false statement on a document you are certifying as accurate. The knowledge box is not a hiding place; it is a statement under a certification of accuracy.

In Philadelphia, the calculus inverts. You cannot obtain the lead-safe or lead-free certificate that 6-803(3)(a) requires without an actual dust-wipe test or a lead-free inspection performed by a qualified professional. The city has, in effect, converted a disclosure regime into a testing regime for its own housing stock. A Philadelphia landlord who says “I have never tested, so I have no knowledge” has answered the federal question correctly and is still unable to lawfully sign the lease.

This is the most persistent error in the entire lead paint form ecosystem, and it is worth being exact about, because being exact is the whole point of a compliance document.

40 CFR 745.110(a) reads: “Before a purchaser is obligated under any contract to purchase target housing, the seller shall permit the purchaser a 10-day period (unless the parties mutually agree, in writing, upon a different period of time) to conduct a risk assessment or inspection for the presence of lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazards.”

Read the nouns. Purchaser. Purchase. Seller. The statute behind it, 42 U.S.C. 4852d(a)(1)(C), does the same thing, directing that the seller permit “the purchaser a 10-day period … to conduct a risk assessment or inspection”. There is no lessee in either instrument. The obligation attaches to a sale.

Turn to the lease side and the item simply is not there. 40 CFR 745.113(b) lists six elements and none of them is an inspection opportunity. The received-or-waived acknowledgment that so many rental forms carry lives at 40 CFR 745.113(a)(5) — the sales disclosure — and nowhere else.

Two honest caveats, because precision cuts both ways. First, you may offer a tenant an inspection window voluntarily. It is a perfectly sensible goodwill gesture for a nervous family in an old rowhouse, and nothing prevents it — it is simply an offer you chose to make, not a right the federal rule conferred. Second, this is a statement about federal law. Municipal ordinances are their own universe, and a local rule could grant tenant rights the federal scheme does not; Philadelphia landlords in particular should treat Chapter 6-800 as a live question for counsel rather than assume the federal answer settles it.

What is not in doubt: no federal rule compels a 10-day inspection window for a lease, and the widely-circulated PAR Form LPD is a sales instrument that should not be handed to a tenant.

Complete the fields below to generate a federally compliant Pennsylvania lead paint disclosure. The generated PDF reproduces the lead warning statement, the lessor’s disclosure items, the lessee’s acknowledgment items, the agent’s acknowledgment, and the certification of accuracy with signature and date lines for each party.

40 CFR 745.113(c) requires the lessor to retain a copy of the completed disclosure for three years from the commencement of the leasing period. Three years is the floor, not a target. The disclosure is a defensive document: its entire value is being producible years later when someone asks whether you complied.

Keep, at minimum, the executed disclosure with every signature; a note of which pamphlet edition was delivered and when; copies of every record you listed and handed over; and, for Philadelphia properties, the certificate, the dust-wipe results, the submission confirmation, and the post-lease written notification about visual inspection.

The rule also contains a clause worth reading carefully, at 40 CFR 745.113(c)(2): the recordkeeping requirement “is not intended to place any limitations on civil suits under the Act, or to otherwise affect a lessee’s or purchaser’s rights under the civil penalty provisions of 42 U.S.C. 4852d(b)(3).” In other words, the three-year retention rule is a records duty; it is not a limitations period, and it does not define how long you can be sued. Do not read more into it than it says — but do not read it as a three-year expiry on your exposure either. Retaining the file for as long as you own the property costs nothing and is the sensible practice.

Electronic disclosure and signature are permitted under the E-SIGN Act, 15 U.S.C. 7001, and EPA has confirmed the disclosure rule accommodates them. The conditions are what people miss:

• Give a clear statement of the tenant’s right to receive the documents on paper.
• Explain the procedure to withdraw consent to electronic delivery, and the consequences of doing so.
• Explain how to access and retain the electronic records, including any hardware or software needed.
• Obtain consent in a way that reasonably demonstrates the tenant can actually access the materials in the form they will be delivered.

Then the same substantive rules apply: the pamphlet must be delivered as a document, not a link; the disclosure must precede obligation; and the electronic record must be retained for the same three years. An emailed PDF with a signed acknowledgment is fine. A URL in a DocuSign envelope is not delivery of a pamphlet.

The leasing disclosure is not the only lead duty a Pennsylvania landlord carries, and confusing the two is common. Under the EPA Renovation, Repair and Painting rule at 40 CFR Part 745 Subpart E, work that disturbs painted surfaces in a pre-1978 unit must be performed using lead-safe work practices by a certified firm, and occupants must receive lead hazard information no more than 60 days before work begins. Where common areas are affected, notice describing the nature, location, and expected dates of the work must reach every unit in the building.

This duty is independent of leasing. It applies mid-tenancy, to a tenant who already received a disclosure at signing, and it applies whether or not the unit is being re-let. The RRP rule catches more small landlords than the disclosure rule does, because repainting a porch on a 1920s Pittsburgh duplex feels like maintenance rather than a regulated activity. It is both. Confirm any contractor’s RRP certification, and their Pennsylvania credential where applicable, before they lift a scraper.

There are two distinct exposures, and they stack.

Private liability. Under 42 U.S.C. 4852d(b)(3), a person who knowingly violates the rule is jointly and severally liable to the purchaser or lessee for three times the amount of damages that person incurred. Under 4852d(b)(4), the court may award court costs, reasonable attorney fees, and expert witness fees to a prevailing party. This is the exposure that actually reaches landlords, because it does not require a regulator to notice you — it requires a tenant with a lawyer.

Government civil penalties. EPA and HUD can assess civil money penalties per violation, and knowing violations can carry criminal exposure.

Why we do not print a dollar figure here

Because any figure we printed would be wrong within a year, and most of the ones you will read already are. Federal civil monetary penalties are adjusted for inflation annually under the mechanism at 40 CFR 19.4, which carries EPA’s current adjusted table. Look at the competing pages ranking for this query and you will find several different, confidently stated, undated per-violation numbers. Each was accurate the year someone wrote it and has been quietly decaying since.

The correct method is to look up the current figure at 40 CFR 19.4 at the moment you need it, rather than trusting a number in a blog post. That is less satisfying than a big scary figure. It is also the only version that stays true.

A myth worth killing, because tenants and landlords both believe it. EPA is explicit that the disclosure rule does not cancel leasing or sales contracts. A tenant who never received a disclosure does not thereby hold a void lease, and cannot simply walk away on that basis. The remedies run in damages and penalties — treble damages, fees, civil penalties — not in rescission.

Philadelphia is the local wrinkle, and even there the wrinkle is not rescission: 6-809(4) denies a non-compliant lessor the right to collect rent for the period of noncompliance, and 6-809(3)(d) allows abatement and refund of rent for the period occupied without a certificate. That is a rent remedy operating on a live lease, not a lease that never existed.

Federal enforcement is shared. EPA administers 40 CFR Part 745 Subpart F; HUD administers the parallel rule at 24 CFR Part 35 Subpart A, and the two agencies run a joint enforcement programme with a formal complaint route. In Philadelphia, the Department of Public Health’s Lead and Healthy Homes Program administers Chapter 6-800 and the certification submission system, and Licenses and Inspections holds the rental licence lever.

In practice, lead disclosure violations rarely surface through a proactive audit. They surface when something else goes wrong: a child’s elevated blood-lead result triggers a health department investigation and the file gets pulled; a tenant sues over a habitability problem and their lawyer requests the lead file; an eviction is defended and the missing certificate becomes the defence; a rental licence renewal stalls. This is why the discipline that matters is not knowing the penalty figure — it is having the signed document in the file, every time, so that when the file is pulled there is nothing to find.

Philadelphia is the most developed Pennsylvania lead regime, but it is not the only local layer, and “my property is not in Philadelphia” does not automatically end the inquiry.

Allegheny County (including Pittsburgh) runs a lead exposure prevention programme through its Health Department, with guidance for landlords and renters and a childhood lead surveillance function. Other Pennsylvania municipalities have adopted their own rental lead certification requirements — Norristown is the most frequently cited example — generally modelled on the Philadelphia approach of tying a lead-safe or lead-free certificate to rental registration.

We are deliberately not reproducing the detail of those local rules here, because municipal ordinances change on their own schedule and a half-remembered summary of one is worse than none. The rule to carry away is procedural: confirm the federal duty (always), confirm Philadelphia (if applicable), then check your own municipality’s rental licensing or health department for a lead requirement before you sign. A landlord in a mid-sized Pennsylvania borough who assumes the federal form is the whole story may be right — but that should be a checked fact, not an assumption.

Disclosure is not condition. This is the conceptual line landlords most often blur: you can deliver a flawless disclosure and still be liable, because the disclosure discharges an information duty and says nothing about the state of the property.

Pennsylvania recognises an implied warranty of habitability in residential leases under Pugh v. Holmes, 486 Pa. 272 (1979). It cannot be waived by lease language, and it operates independently of the federal lead rule. Deteriorated, flaking lead paint in an occupied unit is a condition problem. Telling the tenant about it in a signed disclosure does not make the unit habitable; it merely proves you knew. A disclosure can, in fact, become the evidence that establishes your knowledge in a subsequent habitability or personal-injury claim — which is an argument for fixing the condition, never for hiding it.

Philadelphia stitches the two together explicitly: 6-803(3)(c) requires the post-lease notification telling tenants to watch for deteriorated paint, and obliges the lessor to promptly inspect and correct once notified, as required by the Philadelphia Property Maintenance Code. Our Pennsylvania habitability laws guide covers the condition-based duties in full.

Assuming Pennsylvania has no lead rules because it has no lead statute

Statewide, correct. In Philadelphia, catastrophically wrong. The absence of a state statute is not the absence of a duty; it just moves the duty to the federal and municipal layers.

Using the PAR Form LPD for a rental

Form LPD is a sales instrument built around a seller and a buyer, and it carries the buyer’s 10-day inspection acknowledgment from 745.113(a)(5). Handing it to a tenant imports a sales-only item into a lease. Use the lessor version.

Skipping disclosure on a pre-1978 unit

The most basic violation and still the most common. Every pre-1978 residential rental, every new lease, every time.

Delivering at signing instead of before

The rule runs to the moment the tenant becomes obligated. A disclosure produced with the keys is late, and late is the same violation as never.

Wrong build-year assumption

“It was renovated in the nineties” is not a build year. The original construction date controls. Verify against the assessor record, not memory.

Assuming the Philadelphia certificate is only for families with children

That was the pre-2020 rule. The phase-in tied certification to the rental licence regardless of child occupancy, and completed citywide in September 2022.

Letting a Philadelphia lead-safe certificate lapse

Lead-safe expires; lead-free does not. A four-year-old lead-safe certificate is not a certificate. Diarise it against your licence renewal.

Failing to provide the EPA pamphlet, or linking to it

The pamphlet is a mandatory, specific document, and a URL is not delivery.

Verbal or implied disclosure

“I told them the place was old” is not a disclosure. The rule contemplates a signed document and a retained copy.

Rewriting the lead warning statement

It is prescribed wording. Tidying it, shortening it, or improving the tone can defeat the disclosure.

Pre-ticking the tenant’s acknowledgments

Items (c), (d), and (e) are statements by other people. Completing them on their behalf manufactures a false acknowledgment on a document certified as accurate.

Treating “no knowledge” as a place to hide

It is an honest answer when nothing is known and a false certification when something is.

Failing to disclose to every lessee

Every adult on the lease, not just the one who came to the viewing.

Forgetting records for the rest of the building

Building-wide evaluations covering common areas and other units are within scope for a pre-1978 building.

Renovating without the RRP rule

Disturbing paint in an occupied pre-1978 unit is a regulated activity requiring a certified firm and a 60-day information notice.

The right to the disclosure before being obligated

Not at move-in, not with the keys — before the tenant is bound.

The right to the EPA pamphlet

As a delivered document, in the language of the contract.

The right to treble damages plus fees

42 U.S.C. 4852d(b)(3) makes a knowing violator liable for three times the damages incurred; 4852d(b)(4) allows costs, attorney fees, and expert witness fees.

The right to report to EPA or HUD

The agencies run a joint enforcement programme with a formal complaint route; a tenant does not need to sue to trigger scrutiny.

Philadelphia: the right to a certificate — and to withhold the landlord’s rent remedy

Under Philadelphia Code 6-809(3) a prevailing lessee may obtain an order compelling certification and remediation, damages, exemplary damages up to 2,000 dollars, abatement and refund of rent for the uncertified period, and attorney’s fees. Under 6-809(4) the non-compliant lessor is denied the right to collect rent for the period of noncompliance.

The right to a habitable unit

The implied warranty of habitability under Pugh v. Holmes operates independently of any disclosure.

The right to tort damages for actual exposure

A disclosure is not a liability shield. A child injured by lead exposure has claims that exist regardless of what was disclosed.

The right to fair-housing protection

Refusing to rent to families with young children in order to sidestep lead obligations is familial-status discrimination under the federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq. It is a separate and serious violation, and a recognisable pattern: the landlord who “solves” a lead problem by screening out families has replaced a compliance issue with a civil-rights one. Screen on financial and tenancy criteria, uniformly applied — our Pennsylvania tenant screening laws guide covers the lawful basis.

Published by Tenant Screening Background Check

Established 2004 · 20+ Years · All U.S. States & Territories · Statute-Based · Attorney-Reviewed

A Private Eye Reports™ service trusted by landlords, property managers, and attorneys.