How solid is the approval process?
If it ends up in the Supreme Court would it be a case the owner has valid approval which includes responsibility for the CP involved so it is the owners problem. If he has responsibility for the CP in question then any liability would also be his as well.
There are a lot of scenarios but if the process gives the owner responsibility then why should the OC then fix his bathroom if it all goes wrong.
Consider: It sounds like a good way to have the OC pay for new bathroom tiles if doing half the job and then claiming poor returns responsibility to the OC to fix the damage.
If that is the case then the process needs to be rectified.
Perhaps the approval process should include proof of cost and proof of funds to avoid a repeat of this situation. To go even further the process could involve the funds being held by the OC and released as the job proceeds.
Consider also: if the approval does not mean the owner needs to repair the CP then the OC has the obligation to repair commons regardless of who does the damage but the OC can still pursue the owner who cause the damage for the costs of repairs.
Consider the future; reformists want the people responsible for damage to CP to be liable for it without the OC having to chase them. What would the OC being doing then given the guy is claiming poor?
The future aside; it seems equitable that the owner should be paying to fix the damage either because he has the duty due to the process OR because the OC fixed the damage he caused and he “owes them” for their costs.
If he can afford to fix the damage then he can probably afford to finish the job but the scenario is he can't afford anything.
Good situation …. i look forward to others comments on it.