The landlords gave evidence to the Tribunal, through their agent, about the steps they had taken to address the repairs issues raised by the tenant.

• The Tribunal was satisfied that there were certain defects at the premises and that the landlords had not acted with reasonable diligence to have those defects repaired.
• The Tribunal was satisfied that some of the defects resulted in significant inconvenience for the tenant, some resulted in less significant inconvenience and others resulted in little or mild inconvenience;
• The Tribunal is not satisfied that the tenant took all reasonable steps to mitigate his loss;
• The Tribunal considers that the appropriate way to reconcile a rent control notice over the premises made under the Housing Improvement Act 2016 into the Tribunal's assessment of compensation is to recognise that the tenant has already had the benefit of approximately $7,500.00 in rent that he has not had to pay while residing in the landlords' premises;
• Taking all these matters into account, the Tribunal considers that it would not be in the interests of justice to make any award of compensation to the tenant in this particular case.

Residential Tenancy - Tenant application - Compensation - Obligation to repair - Duty to act with reasonable diligence

Housing Improvement Act 2016 s 25

Residential Tenancies Act 1995 ss 68, 78, 85, 110

Tronnolone v Edwards and Bryan [2016] SACAT 27

Varricchio v Wentzel [2016] SASC 86

Ms D Boffa, Eclipse Real Estate, appeared in person for the respondents

Compensation & Related Orders - Tenant application - Repairs

Made under the Residential Tenancies Act 1995 s 68

1. This is the Tribunal's decision on the application by the tenant Mr Pucek for compensation.
2. The full hearing for this matter took place on 6 November 2025. I have taken into account the evidence of the landlords and tenant provided before and at the full hearing and also submissions made by the parties after the date of the full hearing on the amount of compensation claimed by the tenant.
3. The tenant asserts a breach by the landlords of s 68 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1995 (the Act). The tenant originally relied on numerous alleged defects at the premises and claimed $20,649 in compensation. However, at the full hearing, the tenant reduced his claims to the following:

1. The tenant now claims compensation totalling $18,256 (see further below).
2. The tenant said at the full hearing that he was not claiming any compensation for out-of-pocket expenses but was only claiming compensation for inconvenience.
3. In the tenant's further submissions of 11 November 2025, the tenant appeared to expand item 3(g) to include the front fence and asserted that "the front fence post is also not secured to the ground, and the fence is falling over and needs to be repaired". This may be a late inclusion in the tenant's claim as I do not recollect the tenant raising the fence and post during the full hearing. However, I have allowed the tenant to expand his claim in this respect out of an abundance of caution and, secondly, because it has not altered the final outcome.

1. The application relates to a residential tenancy (the agreement). The agreement is a tenancy agreement under the Act.
2. The tenancy is a 12-month fixed term tenancy which commenced on 18 April 2025.
3. The tenant lived at the premises with his two children, aged under 10 years, and two golden retriever dogs.
4. On about 13 May 2025, the tenant returned to the agent a hardcopy of the agent's entry condition report containing a number of handwritten annotations by the tenant as to conditions he observed at the premises.
5. On 22 July 2025, the tenant served a notice under s 68 of the Act (the s 68 notice) requiring the landlords to repair certain items and to pay him compensation of "rent paid to date".
6. A housing improvement order (HIO) was made under the Housing Improvement Act 2016 (HI Act) on 28 July 2025 identifying numerous defects at the premises that required repair. Briefly, this included:
   1. Entire dwelling: moisture, mould, rising damp, and water damage present in the walls and ceilings; evidence of multiple roof leaks; inadequate drainage and backflow; reports of tripping to electrical system;
   2. Passage: water dripping from a light fitting;
   3. Bathroom: ceiling sagging and unsecured at risk of collapse, possibly asbestos;
   4. Kitchen: sink not sealed with mould and water damage present in cabinetry below;
   5. Laundry: ceiling sagging and unsecured with possible asbestos; laundry door not weather or draught proof
   6. Rear door: handles stuck and not functioning correctly;
   7. Bedroom 3: window in disrepair and unable to be closed;
   8. Rear yard: possible gas leak in the back yard;
   9. Garage: broken roof sheeting, possibly asbestos, in the garage with water leaking into the garage; Garage door not locking and securable;
   10. Shed: in structural disrepair and at risk of collapse;
   11. Front fencing and post not secure; and
   12. Front verandah: window bars and cages not secured; post to veranda in disrepair and not secure, wood rot present.
7. Rent for the premises was originally $650.00 per week. However, from 14 August 2025, pursuant to a rent control notice (RCN) made by the Housing Safety Authority (HSA) under s 25 of the HI Act, rent was reduced to $nil per week. Since 2 October 2025, rent under the HI Act was varied to $100 per week.[1]
8. The parties agreed that the tenant may leave the premises early. The tenant was due to vacate the premises on 9 November 2025. On 2 November 2025, the tenant served a notice on the landlord under s 85B(1)(a) of the Act to terminate the tenancy on the grounds that the premises did not comply with prescribed minimum housing standards under the HI Act.

1. Section 68 of the Act states that a landlord must provide premises in a reasonable state of repair taking into account their age, character and prospective life, and must maintain them in that condition. This obligation becomes part of the tenancy agreement.
2. Section 68(2) states that a landlord will not be regarded as being in breach of the obligation to repair under that section if once notified of a defect, the landlord uses reasonable diligence to carry out repairs. If a landlord is in breach of the obligations under s 68 then the Tribunal may award compensation for financial loss or inconvenience suffered by the tenant as a result of the landlord's breach under s 110 of the Act.
3. The following principles apply to claims made for breach of s 68 of the Act:
   1. section 68(1) requires the landlord to ensure that the premises are in a reasonable state of repair at the commencement of the tenancy and the landlord will be in breach of this obligation if there is a defect in the premises which ought reasonably to have been apparent upon an inspection at that point (Varricchio v Wentzel [2016] SASC 86 at [47]).
   2. once the tenancy has commenced, the landlord is not responsible for defects which arise subsequently unless the landlord is aware of the defect or ought to be aware of the defect and this is a different standard from that which applies at the commencement of the tenancy (Varricchio v Wentzel at [54] - [56]).
   3. a tenant cannot claim compensation for personal injury (such as stress or another medical condition - s 110(2) of the Act) and this means that the Tribunal cannot make an order for compensation for claims such as the reimbursement of medical expenses. The Tribunal does not have power to order compensation for distress or loss of enjoyment of the property. However, as noted earlier, the Tribunal does have power to award compensation for inconvenience or financial loss (Tronnolone v Edwards and Bryan [2016] SACAT 27).
   4. any amount of compensation to be awarded is not determined in accordance with any set scale or formula. The amount of any compensation to be awarded is a global amount taking into account all of the factors in the particular dispute. (This was the approach taken in Varricchio v Wentzel and confirmed in Tronnolone v Edwards and Bryan at [17]).
4. In addition to the general power to award compensation, under s 68(3) of the Act a tenant may recover:
   1. reasonable compensation for damage to property resulting from the state of disrepair after the tenant has notified, or made a reasonable attempt to notify, the landlord of the state of disrepair;
   2. reasonable costs incurred by the tenant in having a state of disrepair remedied if the state of disrepair is likely to result in personal injury, damage to property or undue inconvenience and the tenant has notified the landlord of the state of disrepair or made a reasonable attempt to do so.
5. Section 78 of the Act applies the common law principles about mitigation (which means minimisation or reduction) of loss to any claim for compensation arising from a breach of a residential tenancy agreement. Therefore in making such a claim a tenant is required to take reasonable steps to mitigate any loss and is not entitled to compensation for damage that could have been avoided by those steps.

1. The questions that I need to determine under s 68 when a tenant is seeking compensation are:
   1. Question 1: was there a defect at the premises or, in other words, were the premises not in a reasonable state of repair having regard to their age, character and prospective life? and
   2. Question 2: once notified of any defect requiring repair (or once the landlord ought to have been aware of the defect requiring repair), did the landlord act with reasonable diligence to have the defect repaired? and
   3. Question 3: should the Tribunal award the tenant compensation for inconvenience and/or financial loss? and
   4. Question 4: did the tenant mitigate their losses?
2. I now turn to deal with Questions 1 and 2 in respect of each of the defects raised by the tenant in this case.
3. I note that there was no real dispute about the existence of the defects and that the description of them by the tenant was broadly consistent with the photographic evidence before the Tribunal.
4. To be clear, in considering Question 2, I have placed a small but not significant amount of weight on the fact that the landlords and agent had a multiplicity of defects that needed addressing that had been raised either by the tenant and/or the HSA. However, a landlord is not excused from acting with reasonable diligence under s 68 because of the sheer number of defects the landlord is required to address.

1. The tenant said that an asbestos roof sheet in the garage was cracked. He said that this was reported to the agent on about 24 April 2025. This is consistent with the documentary evidence before the Tribunal. I note that it was also reported in May 2025 in the tenant's comments on the entry condition report ("roof leaking into garage - large hole in roof") and in July 2025 in the s 68 notice ("significant damaged asbestos roof leaks into garage and onto electrical point").
2. Irrespective of when the tenant notified the agent of this issue, I am satisfied that the cracks to the garage roof sheet ought to have been reasonably apparent upon an inspection at the commencement of the tenancy.
3. The tenant said that he is unable to use the garage to store the belongings he otherwise would place there. He said that the cracked panel allowed rain and dirt into the garage and that the dust and damp have affected his belongings. Some belongings have had to be brought to the house and stored in bedrooms or on the porch. He has left other belongings in the garage in elevated positions. He said that he also did not want to store belongings underneath the broken asbestos.
4. The tenant said that he would have parked his vehicle under the garage but could not do so because of the rainwater ingress. He said that the rainwater runs to a live electrical outlet which he would otherwise use to charge his electric vehicle. Instead his car is parked under an open carport and is charged by an electricity cable run from inside the house. The tenant said that his car insurance required him to park his car in the garage.
5. The tenant said that an attempt by landlords' trades on 21 July 2025 to repair the roof sheet using silicon was ineffective. The tenant said that the garage roof remains unrepaired.
6. The agent said that she engaged a tradesperson (Urban Green) on 26 April 2025 to attend to the garage roof. This is consistent with the documentary evidence before the Tribunal. The tradesperson apparently inspected the roof on about 14 May 2025. The agent said the tradesperson did not submit a quote and that the tradesperson said that the job needed a person with expertise in asbestos work. She said that she contacted other trades (Macplumb) to see to the roof in July who quoted for work to remove all the asbestos. The agent agreed that this work has not yet been done.
7. I am well satisfied that the cracked garage roof sheet is a defect at the premises and that the landlords have not acted with reasonable diligence to have the defect repaired. While the agent initially acted promptly in engaging Urban Green to see to the roof, it was not reasonable for there to be a delay until July before Macplumb was engaged. Further, it is not reasonable that now, in November, the work still has not been done.
8. I am satisfied that the landlords' breach of s 68 of the Act has resulted in substantial inconvenience to the tenant. The tenant has not claimed he suffered any insurance difficulties due to his car not being parked in the garage so I disregard the insurance issue for the purposes of this assessment.

1. The tenant said that, in the s 68 notice on 22 July 2025, he reported to the agent that the lock to the panel door of the garage was not working. Apparently, the lock was in disrepair and some of it was missing. On the evidence, I accept that he did include the panel door lock in his s 68 notice.
2. The tenant said that, without a lockable garage, the property inside the garage was insecure and was accessible from the street. He said that he did not have the financial capacity to place his belongings into commercial storage.
3. The agent said that she engaged trades (Autoroll) to attend to the panel door. She could not remember when she did so. She said that a new panel door needed to be installed as there were no parts in stock to repair the lock. It seems this new installation of a panel door occurred on 22 October 2025. The tenant said that the panel door lock was repaired two weeks ago.
4. I am satisfied that the broken or missing panel door lock is a defect at the premises. I take into account that landlords and agents are somewhat at the mercy of the busy schedules of tradespersons and the availability of parts. However, I am not satisfied that the landlords acted with reasonable diligence in this matter. It is not reasonable for the panel door to have taken three months to be remedied.
5. Even so, I am not satisfied that the landlords' breach of s 68 in respect of the panel door locking mechanism has caused significant inconvenience to the tenant. I consider that, to some extent, the tenant chose to leave certain belongings in the garage rather than placing them elsewhere. I am not entirely persuaded by the tenant's argument that he did not have the financial capacity to place his belongings into commercial storage. In this regard, I note that the tenant was not paying any rent from 14 August 2025 and has been paying minimal rent since 2 October 2025.

1. The tenant said that he reported two leaks to the agent: a leak in the hallway ceiling was reported on 24 April 2025 and a leak in the bathroom ceiling was reported in the s 68 notice on 22 July 2025. The tenant's account is consistent with the documentary evidence before the Tribunal.
2. The tenant described a substantial leak in the hallway and that the water was coming through a light fitting. He said that the hallway carpet got wet and smelly. He said he needed to put down towels and buckets.
3. The tenant said the premises had only one bathroom and that it was partially unusable as the ceiling panels were sagging over the bathtub. He said it was unsafe for his children to have baths and they had showers instead.
4. The hallway and the bathroom have different roofs. The tenant said the hallway roof was resealed with silicon on 23 July 2025 and that the bathroom roof was replaced on 7 October 2025. The bathroom ceiling has since been boarded up.
5. The agent agreed that the hallway leaks were reported to her on 24 April 2025 but said that she was first made aware of the bathroom roof situation in the HIO of July 2025. She said that she sent trades to see to the hallway on 26 April 2025[2] and they reported that the gutters needed to be replaced before the roof could be resealed. In respect of the bathroom, she said that, on 24 July 2025, she organised for Macplumb to look at it and they undertook an inspection on 4 August. Their quote dated 19 August for roof work was approved by the landlords.
6. I am well satisfied that the leaking roofs are a defect at the premises and that the landlords did not act with reasonable diligence to have the defects repaired. The agent did act promptly once they were brought to her attention. However, it is not reasonable for the substantial leak in the hallway roof to take three months to repair. In a similar way, but to a lesser extent, it is not reasonable for the bathroom roof to take over two months to repair.
7. I do not accept the agent's argument that the delay in dealing with the roof, and with repairs generally, was due entirely to the tenant cancelling or delaying trades visits. There is no evidence to support the agent's implication that the tenant was obstructive and non-cooperative in this regard. The tenant explained that he works from home and that he has sometimes needed to suggest alternative scheduling arrangements because he has needed to take his children to and from school or attend to the requirements of his work. He said that he once refused to allow a tradesperson to attend on a public holiday and that he also refused a tradesperson who called him on a Saturday morning to come out later that day. This is all quite reasonable. I accept the tenant's evidence that he has generally facilitated attendance by tradespersons at the premises.
8. I am satisfied that the landlords' breach of s 68 of the Act in respect of the roof leaks, particularly that in the hallway, has resulted in substantial inconvenience to the tenant. However, it is less clear to me that an inability to use the bathtub would have caused substantial inconvenience to the tenant or his children.

1. The tenant said that a hinged window in the bedroom in which he sleeps is warped and rotted and does not close. It cannot be latched. It cannot be pushed closed from the outside. It remains ajar allowing ingress of rain and dirt. The wall near it is stained. He does not place his belongings near it.
2. The tenant said that he reported this problem in the s 68 notice on 22 July 2025. I accept that he did. However, in any event, the problem with the bedroom window ought to have been reasonably apparent upon an inspection at the commencement of the tenancy.
3. The tenant said that there was an attempt by landlords' trades to fix the window on 15 September 2025 but this was unsuccessful. He said that he did not inform the agent that the window was still a problem.
4. The agent said that she added the window to the tasks for which Macplumb were engaged. She said that she had not been notified that the attempted fix was unsuccessful.
5. I am well satisfied that the bedroom window being unable to be properly closed and latched is a defect at the premises and that the landlords did not with reasonable diligence [act] to have the defect repaired. Again, the agent did act promptly once it was brought to her attention. However, it is not reasonable for the window to remain unable to be closed since it was first reported in July. I accept that it was a significant inconvenience to the tenant.
6. However, I am of the view that the tenant did not take steps to reasonably mitigate his losses. The tenant should have taken steps to notify the agent that the window had not been fixed by the tradesperson in September. This does not mean that I accept the suggestion by the agent that it was wholly the tenant's responsibility to bring to her attention that the problem with the window continued to exist. A landlord has a positive duty to ensure that premises remain in reasonable repair throughout the tenancy. It was incumbent upon the agent to check that the tradesperson had undertaken an effective repair.

1. The tenant said that the kitchen sink drain was blocked and he reported that on 24 April 2025. I am satisfied that the tenant reported this issue to the agent, at the very least, in an email on 29 April 2025. The tenant said that the sink would fill up and be slow to drain away. He said that kitchen water would back up into the yard.
2. The tenant said that there was a first attempt to resolve the issue but that the problem recurred. He said that the sink drain problem was only resolved in October 2025.
3. It seems from the evidence before the Tribunal that the agent organised a plumber to see to the kitchen drains by about 1 May 2025. The agent said that the drains were cleared on 15 May 2025 and that she was not aware that they were subsequently blocked again. The tenant said that he did not report ongoing problems with the kitchen drains as he believed the first plumber was going to return.
4. The evidence before the Tribunal (an invoice dated 15 May 2025 from APC Plumbing & Gas) indicates that a plumber attended on 13 May 2025 to address the blocking and slow draining of the kitchen sink. The plumber noted that the kitchen drains to an old gully outside and that small tree roots were visible at the inlet to the gully. After using a machine and hook to try to clear out the roots, the plumber reported that "now running a lot better ... ** the gully would need digging up to fix permanently ** as those tree roots are matted in there".
5. It seems to me from the evidence that the recurrence of the kitchen drains problem was a symptom of ongoing significant drainage defects at the premises. I am satisfied they were a cause of significant inconvenience for the tenant.
6. I am satisfied that the landlords did not act with reasonable diligence to have the drainage issues repaired. While the agent may have acted promptly once it was brought to her attention, she should have checked that the drainage issues were fully resolved. This is especially so given the warning expressed in the plumber's invoice of 15 May 2025.
7. However, I am of the view that the tenant did not take steps to reasonably mitigate his losses. He should have notified the agent that the drains were still a problem.

1. The tenant said that two sections of the floating floorboards in the kitchen were swollen. He made a note of this on the entry report that he returned to the agent on about 13 May 2025 and again in the s 68 notice on 22 July 2025. I accept on the evidence that he did include it in the entry report feedback but not in the s 68 notice.
2. The tenant said that the sections are near the sink and at the door to the hallway.
3. The agent said that this task was included in the Macplumb work order of 24 July 2025.
4. The tenant said that the landlords' trades looked at the floor in July and did a temporary fix. The fix was ineffective. He said that they are a tripping hazard and that, in particular, the section at the doorway is unable to be avoided. He said that he tripped and broke his ribs at that point four weeks ago.[3]
5. It seems that the tenant may be misremembering when the landlords' trades attended to the floor. An invoice from 5 Star Property Service indicated this was done on about 15 September 2025. The invoice noted the boards were weathered and did not sit flush and "will probably need replacement in the near future".
6. I am satisfied that the swollen floorboards are a serious defect at the premises and that the landlords have not acted with reasonable diligence to have them deal with. It is now some six months since they were first raised by the tenant in the entry report.
7. All the same, it is not clear to me that the tenant could reasonably be said to have suffered inconvenience as a result of the problem with the floorboards.
8. Any inconvenience that the tenant may have suffered would be mild. In any event, I am satisfied that the tenant did not take reasonable steps to mitigate any inconvenience. For example, it would have been a simple matter to lay mats to avoid the tripping hazard posed by the swollen floorboards.

1. The tenant said that he noted before moving into the property that one half of the front gates is missing. It is still missing and has not been replaced despite the agent agreeing before he moved in that it would be replaced. This was important to the tenant because he wanted a secure yard for his children and dogs. I note that the tenant raised the issue in an email to the agent on 29 April 2025 and in his s 68 notice in July.
2. The tenant estimated that the height of the front fence and gates is about one metre to 1.2 metres. He said that he has bought panels from Bunnings to block off the side passage so that his dogs were confined to the rear yard. The tenant said he is not claiming for these out-of-pocket expenses.
3. The agent said that, on 7 April 2024[4], she engaged trades to obtain the missing half of the front gates. She said that the front gates are now going to be wholly replaced as it was not possible to obtain only one half of the gates.
4. On reflection, I would be satisfied that the missing half-gate is a defect at the premises. I am satisfied that the landlords' have not acted with reasonable diligence to have the gate repaired or reinstated. It should have been dealt with before now.
5. The tenant also asserts that the front fence post is not secured to the ground and that the fence is falling over and needs to be repaired.
6. However, I consider that it would be a mistake to overstate the seriousness of the defect or the degree of inconvenience that this could have resulted in for the tenant. I am not persuaded that a fence and gate of (at best) 1.2 metres in height would have added in a significant way to the security of the premises. As I observed at the hearing, a fence/gate of that height would be unlikely to be able to contain the tenant's dogs and could readily be scaled by a human. Any inconvenience that the tenant may have suffered would be mild to moderate.

1. I turn now to Questions 3 and 4.
2. The question of whether a tenant will be awarded compensation for a breach of s 68, and if so, how much, is fundamentally a matter for the Tribunal in the exercise of its discretion under s 110 of the Act.
3. In submissions provided to the Tribunal following the hearing, the tenant explained that his various claims were due to:
   • The impact of the significantly reduced liveability/usability of the property for my family/pets/I, evidenced by my supplied images, documentation, notification timeline, and HSA order/rent control.
   • The time required by me to correspond via emails/numerous phone calls with the agent and trades to pursue remediation of this maintenance issue.
   • Time/leave required by me to facilitate trade inspections, quotes, and repairs over the 6-month period of tenancy for this maintenance issue.
4. The tenant claimed the following amounts (totalling $18,256.00):

c. leaks in roof above bathroom and hallway - $8,256;

1. For the reasons I have given above, I am satisfied that some of the defects resulted in significant inconvenience for the tenant (the leaking garage roof, the hallway leak, the bedroom window, the kitchen drains). Some defects resulted in less significant inconvenience (the bathroom leak) and some defects resulted in little or mild inconvenience only (the panel door lock, the kitchen floorboard, the front fence/gate).
2. In those circumstances, it would be reasonable to give some consideration to awarding the tenant some compensation for his inconvenience. However, the tenant's own quantification of his claim is excessive. The claims he has made for inconvenience for each item, and the total global amount, is unreasonably large and unsupported by the evidence.
3. Also, as noted above, in a number of respects, I am not satisfied that the tenant took all steps reasonably open to him to mitigate his loss. At the directions hearing on 11 September 2025, the tenant was directed to file written submissions on what action the tenant took to mitigate his loss. No such submissions were made.
4. In addition to the comments on mitigation I have made earlier in these reasons, I consider that a reasonable tenant would have minimised their ongoing inconvenience by seeking to vacate the premises somewhat earlier than the tenant did in this case. The tenant's notice under s 85B was served some six months after the defects at the premises began to be an issue for the tenant. I note also that, at the directions hearing on 11 September 2025, the agent said that the landlords were prepared to release the tenant from the tenancy agreement without break lease costs. He did not take up this offer until the time he served the s 85B notice on 2 November 2025. I consider that a reasonable tenant ought to have accepted the landlords' offer and moved out more quickly than the tenant actually did.
5. However, before I decide how much compensation should be awarded to the tenant, I need to turn my mind to the fact that, under the RCNs, the tenant paid no rent from 14 August 2025 to 2 October 2025 and has paid $100 rent since 2 October 2025.
6. For two main reasons, I have not approached the question of compensation on the basis that the Tribunal should reflect the terms of the first RCN and refund the tenant all rent he has paid since the commencement of the tenancy up to 14 August 2025.
7. The first reason is that the task of the HSA in making an RCN under the HI Act is different from the task of the Tribunal determining an appropriate amount of compensation for a contractual breach of a residential tenancy agreement. It is different in nature and it is different in purpose. The purpose of an RCN is to advance the objects of the HI Act. The purpose of a monetary award by the Tribunal is to compensate a tenant for losses caused by a contractual breach by the landlord.
8. I have set out above the legal principles that guide the Tribunal in determining matters of compensation under s 68 of the Act (summarised as "Questions 1, 2, 3 and 4"). In contrast, under s 25 of the HI Act, the HSA would have taken into account the following matters in deciding whether to make an RCN in respect of the premises:
   • the condition of the premises; and
   • the capital value of the premises as determined under the Valuation of Land Act 1971; and
   • to the extent that the Minister may reasonably be able to determine, the market rent for residential premises of that kind in the same or similar localities; and
   • any other factors prescribed by regulation[5] or considered relevant by the Minister; and
   • submissions made after inviting the landlords to show why a rent control notice should not be made.
9. This is not to mean that the RCN should be totally ignored by the Tribunal. It would be artificial to do so as the RCN is, in part, a recognition that the tenant has been residing in premises that have been found by the HSA to have numerous problematic issues. I consider that I should take into account, in this regard, that the RCN is a reflection of and/or response to the issues identified in the HIO. I should also take into account that the issues identified in the HIO substantially overlap with the defects for which the tenant is claiming compensation in these proceedings. This includes roof leaks to the hallway, bathroom, and garage, the uncloseable window in Bedroom 3, the panel door lock defect and the defect to the front fence and fence post.
10. The second reason is that to refund the tenant his rent to 14 August 2025 would fail to adequately recognise the contractual agreement between the parties and would fail to recognise that the tenant has made use of the landlord's premises since the commencement of the tenancy. The tenant and his children have had accommodation from the commencement of the tenancy: they have had a place to work, sleep, eat, bathe, etc, and perform other family activities. I should take this into account in setting an amount of compensation.

1. To be clear, the role of compensation is not to punish the landlord but to reimburse the tenant for the losses caused to him by the landlords' breaches of contract.
2. The tenancy was of some six or seven months in duration. I consider that the practical inconvenience to the tenant throughout this period of the landlords' failure to comply with s 68 of the Act (as discussed above) and the time and effort involved for the tenant having to deal with the agent and trades in this period would warrant a modest amount of compensation.
3. My various findings on mitigation would have a small to moderate depreciatory effect on the amount of compensation to which the tenant would otherwise be entitled.
4. The amount that might be awarded to the tenant against the landlords would be no greater than about $2,500.00 to $3,000.00.
5. I consider that the appropriate way to reconcile the RCN into the Tribunal's assessment of compensation is to recognise that the tenant has already had the benefit of approximately $7,500.00 in rent that he has not had to pay while residing in the landlords' premises. It is necessary to recognise the substantial overlap between the defects claimed in these Tribunal proceedings and the defects identified in the HIO, which must be taken to have informed the rent reduction imposed by the RCNs.
6. Taking all these matters into account, I consider that it would not be in the interests of justice to make any award of compensation to the tenant in this particular case.
7. This does not mean that every tenant who has had the benefit of a rent reduction from an RCN will be unable to obtain an award of further compensation from the Tribunal for a breach by the landlord of s 68 of the Act. It is just that in the particular combination of circumstances in this present case, no award of compensation is warranted.
8. For completeness, I note that there were no submissions received from either party as to any breach of s 67A of the Act by the landlords (as to compliance with prescribed minimum housing standards under the HI Act when the tenant entered into occupation). These issues would involve potentially contestable legal and factual questions, notwithstanding the HIO and RCN. I have not made any findings on those issues. Also, it is not clear to me that a finding of a breach of s 67A would alter my decision on the compensation question.

[1] The RCN is the subject of separate proceedings in the Tribunal between the landlords and the HSA. Those proceedings have not yet been concluded.

[2] This is consistent with the documentary evidence before the Tribunal.

[3] The tenant is aware that the Tribunal cannot award compensation for personal injury.

[4] Note: reference to the year 2024 was an error in the decision as originally released to the parties, which should refer to the year 2025.