Decision report 201101206

Summary

Mr C owns one-third of a house occupied by his mother (Mrs B). The association notified him that they had awarded his mother a grant for adaptations to the house and they were assisting her with the work. They asked for his consent to a number of conditions attached to the work. Mr C replied with a number of questions about the work, and said he was withholding his consent until they were answered.

On the advice of the local council, the association proceeded with the work with only the consent of the other two owners. Mr C considered that the association should not have continued with the work without his consent and should have communicated with him better. He also thought that the association misrepresented his position to the council.

Our investigation found that although it was the council's decision to proceed with the work, the association had failed to properly communicate with Mr C. They had also failed to properly progress his initial complaint. However, as the association had already addressed these matters in the complaint correspondence, we made no recommendations about this. We did not find that they had misrepresented his position, particularly as we noted that the council also had access to a note from Mr C explaining his views.