Because it seems there's some evidence at least that it could be reasonable losses arising from the landlord's failure to maintain the premises
You can only say the landlord "failed to maintain the premises" if there was an unreasonable delay in restoring services. A week is reasonable for the purchase and installation of a hot water unit. Subsequently the landlord has maintained the premises.
There is no evidence, given the information provided, the landlord has not maintained the premises, unless you are implying the landlord has a crystal ball to tell the future of when the service was going to fail.
No need to create a story where there is none.