I am part of the 37 per cent of Sydney’s population left vulnerable in a poorly-regulated rental market. That’s because we live in a city of landlords and I’m a tenant. But there’s a window for change right now.

Our obsession with owning real estate in this country means that by the time you reach your late 20s, the usual talk of marriage and children is overshadowed by the real concern you are yet to start saving for a home deposit.

This overblown eagerness for home ownership, and the fact that tenants are the large minority in Sydney, is reflected in the law and the unfair power relations between landlords and tenants.

The good news is that tenant laws in NSW are currently under statutory review.

Recommendations have been submitted and it’s expected the Minister for Innovation and Better Regulation will lodge a report to Parliament in June.

In a speech last year, Luci Ellis, head of Financial Stability at the Reserve Bank, highlighted the link between home ownership and the “security of tenure that is so important to the wellbeing of many households.”

Renters on the other hand don’t get the “wellbeing” experienced by homeowners, and instead face the instability, anxiety and added expense that often comes hand in hand with having to move frequently.

I live in a share house in Sydney’s inner-city – a minuscule, two-bedroom unit – and I have experienced all of those things. And it’s not just about moving. As a renter it is often a case of lost productivity, health problems and financial strain because unsatisfactory tenancy legislation fails to protect us.

Our problem in Australia, and Sydney, is that we have some of the most tenant-unfriendly laws in the world.

In some cities like Berlin, where about 70 per cent of the population rents, the power imbalance sways in favour of tenants.

German renters expect to be able to live in an apartment forever, and a much greater sense of social justice informs the laws to protect them. Their rental increases are generally capped to the city or suburb average, and landlords face substantial hurdles to terminate tenancies.

The difference between Australia and a country like Germany is that landlords here tend to invest in property for capital gain. In Germany a lot of institutional investors turn to real estate for a stable stream of income.

One obvious problem for tenants in Sydney is that while there are certain restrictions on how often there can be a rent increase, there are no limitations on how much a landlord can increase the rent by.

One of the recommendations by the NSW Tenants Union is that landlords should be prevented from increasing the rent above the rate of inflation, unless they have a valid reason to do so.

The onus should be on the landlord to prove why the rent should be increased (beyond the inflation rate), and not on the tenant to argue why it should remain the same.

With the end of our 12-month lease on the horizon, we’ve been notified of the landlord’s intention to increase our rent by $55 a week.

Taking into consideration what the previous tenants paid and what our new rent will be, within 13 months the weekly cost will have gone up 21.3 per cent.

That’s compared to the inflation rate of 1.7 per cent over the past year, which means that despite being blatantly out of whack, it’s simply of no concern or consequence to the landlord.

According to the NSW Tenants Union, it’s harder for tenants to argue against such increases because “they don’t have access to the kind of information that a property investor would about the market”. And at the end of the day, when you do provide solid evidence – from experience – it can simply be dismissed.

So, you are faced with four no-win choices: accept a rent increase, negotiate with your landlord, move house, or contest the rent hike at the tribunal.

According to the NSW Tenants Union “the number of people who contest it at the tribunal is low, it can be a lengthy process and very difficult to achieve a positive decision”.

Another of the recommendations is to abolish the “no-grounds notice”, which means landlords would have to provide one of a number of accepted reasons for ending a tenancy, for example, they have plans to move in themselves.

Currently, it’s easy for landlords to send off a letter of termination as a way to force a tenant’s hand into accepting a rent increase.

This power play creates angst for tenants and creates an unfair expectation in our society that roving renters are the norm.

The heart of the problem is that tenants are treated with suspicion, while it’s assumed that landlords are upstanding citizens.

In order to rent here, tenants have to jump through hurdles; provide bank statements, rent ledgers and character references. While this is obviously important, owners should also be required to show they are worthy landlords.

In fact, I never thought I’d say this, but it’s time we followed in the footsteps of the American state of Utah.

They have a “good landlord program” which makes it financially beneficial for landlords to pass a training course about correct behaviour and the law. And I’m more than happy to dispense some helpful suggestions for free.

Owners should also have to provide tenants with ratings of their apartments and houses and glowing landlord character references before renters make their decision.

But, at the end of the day, even the websites that crowd-source reviews about rental properties are not enough. There will always be vulnerable tenants who rely on the government to regulate the market fairly and now is the time to do so.