Paint in bathrooms… again but with new ‘info’

Hi,

I've posted here before about a bathroom leak causing damage and strata repairing the damage but refusing to paint.

I've moved and the same problem has happened again! There was a leak from the unit above into my ceiling and bulkhead causing severe damage to both the bulkhead and the paint.

It took a week of my hassling before strata actually sent out a plumber to fix that problem and in that time of course the damage got much worse. Now I've been hassling them for several more weeks to fix the damage and they finally sent out tenders to quote to various companies. The first one came out yesterday and advised that he'd quote to repair the damage but not the paint.

I wrote to strata explaining that as I understand it (and logically) whilst I am responsible for my paint generally, that if it is damaged by common property or another lot, that it isn't my responsibility to fix. I actually had the bathroom repainted about 9 months ago so the idea of having to pay to do it again is horrifying.

They replied with a PDF they say was prepared by ISTM (although it doesn't say that anywhere on the doc) and referred me to this section:

13 If damage is caused to a lot owner’s property while the owners corporation are effecting a repair, the owners corporation are responsible to fix the damaged property. However, if the cause of the damage to the owner’s property was not made when the owners corporation were fixing the problem; instead it was caused by the problem itself, then the owners corporation are not responsible to make good the owner’s property unless the owners corporation can be deemed negligent. E.g.:
1. A burst pipe occurs in a wall and the owners corporation have to knock a hole in the wall to fix it. The owners corporation are responsible to fix the hole and repaint the wall afterwards.
2. A burst pipe occurs in a concrete slab. The owner’s corporation fix the leak, but water stained the ceiling paintwork of the unit below. Here the owners corporation are not responsible to repaint the ceiling because it was not the fixing of the repair that caused the damage.
3. A burst hot water service soaked the magnasite in a unit and the owners corporation had to take up the carpet to dry the magnasite. Once the magnasite had dried, the carpet could not be re‐laid because it had shrunk. The owners corporation would be responsible for the carpet because the carpet was damaged because they had to take it up.
4. With example 3, if the magnasite was not damaged, the owners corporation would not be responsible to dry out the carpet or replace it, if it shrunk because the damage to the carpet was not caused when the owners corporation werefixing common property.

For one, I don't see how they can fix the bulkhead without further damaging the paint… but secondly, can this be right? Why should I have to pay to repaint AGAIN through no fault of my own??

Thanks for your advice!