I would have thought that any claim by an owner to the OC would require evidence that say an expense was incurred by the owner to repair or replace an item or that damage to that owner’s premises or assets was sustained. This is because such evidence is needed to justify a claim.
The fact that an earlier committee declined the request could be based on fact, i.e. there was no satisfactory evidence or there was no direct link between that which was repaired or replaced and the lot owner; or it was based on fiction (i.e. internal politics)