Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about dust that blew on to the complainant’s car while the Council was doing tree work. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council is responsible for dust blowing onto his car due to the way it carried out tree work. He wants the Council to pay him £90 so he can have the car professionally cleaned.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I read the complaint and correspondence between Mr X and the contractor. I looked at the photographs Mr X sent to the Council and an image of the street on streetview from 2015. I considered comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

4. Mr X complained to the Council, through correspondence with the contractor, that dust from a wood chopper had blown on to his car while the contractor was doing tree works. He said that after speaking to the contractors they moved the shredder closer to his property. Mr X said he had just had his car professionally cleaned for £60 and he wanted the Council to compensate him because he would have to have it cleaned again.
5. In response the Council apologised but said the dust was blowing in the wind. It said the dust was fine and came from the chain saw, used at height, rather than from the shredder. It said there were limited options for placing the shredder as it has to be near where the work is being done and positioned to blow the waste into a vehicle. It said the work was done on a dry day and the dust would not settle.
6. Mr X disagrees the dust came from a chain saw. He says it definitely came from the shredder which was angled towards his property. He says the Council could have taken the branches away to be chopped up elsewhere. He wants the Council to pay him £90 so he can have the car cleaned.

Assessment

7. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. I have looked at the photographs and of an image of the street. These show the contractor was working on a tree at least one house from Mr X’s house and at least 10 metres away. The shredder was placed in the immediate area of the tree where the contractor was working. The shredder was not placed near to Mr X’s house or car and the contractor cannot be held responsible for dust that blows around in the wind; it would be impossible to do tree work without causing dust, regardless of where the chopper was placed or what direction it faced. In addition, the photographs show a fine covering of dust which looks as though it would be relatively easy to remove.
8. Mr X says there was no advance warning of the work. That may be so but I am not aware of any requirement to give notice for tree works. Mr X also says the Council could have chopped the branches elsewhere. Again, there is no requirement to do this and it would probably not be an efficient way of working.
9. I appreciate Mr X felt annoyed when he saw dust covering his clean car but this appears to be from the combination of work, wind and the environment rather than fault by the Council. Even if the crew had repositioned the chopper Mr X may still have found dust on the car.

Back to top

Final decision

10. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman