Across the globe, tenants, landlords, and policymakers are grappling with the ever-evolving landscape of rental housing. In the past week alone, dramatic developments in London, New York, and Victoria, Australia have thrown a spotlight on the challenges of balancing tenant protections with landlord interests, and the unintended consequences that can follow even well-intentioned reforms.
In south-east London, a group of five tenants living in a shared maisonette on Woolwich Road found themselves in a situation few renters would envy. According to BBC reporting, for 58 days, these residents were forced to urinate in a bath or make trips to a nearby furniture superstore’s lavatories, all because their landlord failed to repair a broken toilet. The ordeal did not stop there: they also endured a ventilation system so noisy it kept them awake at night, while persistent mould took hold in the flat’s vent openings. The tenants, frustrated and feeling neglected, took their case to a tribunal, arguing not only that the property was in disrepair, but that the landlords lacked the proper House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) licence required for such a shared home.
The tribunal agreed. The landlords, who owned and managed other HMO properties, admitted they did not possess the necessary licence, blaming the oversight on a co-landlord’s severe brain injury in 2021 and a lost letter from Greenwich Council regarding licensing updates. However, the tribunal found that their understanding of the licensing regime was sorely lacking, stating, “they had no real understanding of the nature of mandatory licensing.” Ultimately, the tenants were awarded £5,300—about 40% of the maximum possible rent repayment—citing both licensing failures and the unacceptable living conditions. The landlord’s health struggles were acknowledged, but the tribunal emphasized that property owners must remain aware of their legal obligations, especially when managing multiple homes.
This case underscores a persistent problem in many major cities: the tension between protecting renters from substandard housing and ensuring landlords can feasibly maintain their properties. In New York City, the debate has reached a fever pitch. Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, who will take office in January 2026 after campaigning to expand rent stabilization, now faces a federal lawsuit that could reshape housing policy not just in the city, but nationwide. As reported by the Wall Street Journal, a group of landlords—represented by the nonprofit Institute for Justice—are challenging a core element of New York’s rent stabilization law: the restriction on charging market rent for vacant, renovated apartments.
The landlords’ argument is straightforward. They claim that the law, which limits rent increases to between 3% and 4.5% even when a tenant leaves and the apartment is renovated, makes it financially unjustifiable to invest in upgrades. According to Suranjan Sen, an attorney at the Institute for Justice, “When the government regulates property to the point where it cannot be used, that is an unconstitutional taking. In addition to violating the Constitution, this also aggravates the problem the government is trying to address.” The result, they argue, is that thousands of rent-stabilized units remain vacant—at least 26,000 according to Census data, though some investors estimate the true number may be as high as 100,000.
New York’s 2019 rent stabilization law was enacted in response to a severe affordability crisis and a wave of tenant displacement. Lawmakers sought to close loopholes that allowed landlords to remove units from regulation or sharply raise rents after renovations, aiming to prevent mass evictions and keep housing affordable. Tenant advocates hailed the reforms as a victory, but the apartment industry warned that such strict limits would ultimately backfire. And now, as vacancy rates for stabilized units hover around 1%, the city is reckoning with the fallout: a significant stock of apartments sitting empty, unavailable to renters, while demand for affordable housing remains sky-high.
Former New York assemblyman Kenny Burgos, now CEO of the New York Apartment Association, voiced concerns on a recent podcast, saying, “The distress of rent stabilized buildings is going to be one of the biggest stories for the next 12 to 18 months.” He warned that if the situation isn’t resolved, “affordable housing is in trouble.” The lawsuit’s outcome could send shockwaves to other cities with rent stabilization, such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C., where similar policies are in place but have been structured to allow landlords more flexibility to recoup renovation costs. Critics in California, for instance, have long argued that landlords exploit exemptions to reset rents to market rates, while New York’s stricter rules have led to the opposite problem: empty, unrentable units.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the world, the state of Victoria in Australia is embarking on its own ambitious round of rental reforms. As reported by NewsWire, from Tuesday, November 25, 2025, five new regulations will take effect, adding to the 150 rental reforms enacted since 2021. Among the most significant changes: a ban on no-fault evictions, the end of rental bidding, and an extension of notice periods for rent increases and evictions to 90 days. From now on, landlords and agents will be prohibited from accepting bids above the advertised rent, a move designed to prevent tenants from being “pitted against each other” in a bidding war, as Tenants Victoria chief executive Jennifer Beveridge put it. “It’s hard enough trying to find somewhere to live without turning the rental market into an auction house,” she said.
Victoria’s reforms also require all homes advertised from November 25 to meet minimum standards, mandate annual smoke alarm checks for tenancies signed since March 2021, and, starting December 1, demand that window cords be anchored to prevent safety hazards. Landlords and agents must now protect tenants’ information from misuse, and only valid reasons—such as property sale, renovations, or breach of agreement—will justify eviction. Fixed-term leases will automatically convert to month-to-month unless renewed, and a new law will soon allow tenants to transfer their bond directly to a new rental, sparing them the burden of double payments when moving.
While tenant advocates have celebrated these changes as overdue protections, the response from property owners has been less enthusiastic. Ben Kingsley, board member of the Property Investors Council of Australia, argued that the reforms have been poorly communicated and risk driving investors out of the Victorian market. “No landlord is requesting any dance with this government on their dance card,” he quipped, suggesting that the state’s approach is making it increasingly unattractive for landlords. Toby Balazs, CEO of the Real Estate Institute of Victoria, called for a fair and balanced market, warning that the sheer pace of regulatory change is a major challenge for property managers striving to stay compliant.
All three stories, though separated by thousands of miles, share a common thread: the difficulty of crafting rental policies that protect tenants from exploitation and unsafe conditions without discouraging investment or creating shortages. Whether it’s a broken toilet in London, empty rent-stabilized apartments in New York, or a crackdown on rental bidding in Victoria, the stakes are high for millions who depend on reliable, affordable housing. As governments continue to experiment with new rules and reforms, the world will be watching closely to see which approaches succeed—and which create new problems in their wake.
For now, one thing is clear: the quest for fair, functional rental markets remains as urgent—and as complex—as ever.
