Latest decision summaries

  • Date of Decision:2/12/2020 Decision Case Number:3892-2018

    The Parliamentary Ombudsman directs criticism towards the Prison and Probation Service, Tidaholm prison, for communicating a decision that goes against the statutory regulated ban on censorship of the freedom of speech

    Read more
  • Date of Decision:2/11/2020 Decision Case Number:5634-2017

    The Parliamentary Ombudsman directs severe criticism towards the Forensic Psychiatric Care Section in Stockholm for setting up codes of conduct that impose a general ban against verbal communication between patients among other things

    Read more
  • Date of Decision:2/11/2020 Decision Case Number:5875-2018

    The Parliamentary Ombudsman directs criticism towards the Social Welfare Board in Flen municipality for not inquiring about an individual’s need to apply for financial assistance pursuant to the Social Service Act

    Read more
  • Date of Decision:2/10/2020 Decision Case Number:3233-2018

    The Parliamentary Ombudsman directs severe criticism towards the Social Welfare Board in Olofström municipality for collecting and bringing two siblings to a venue that belonged to the social services, without obtaining the guardians’ consent

    Read more
  • Date of Decision:2/5/2020 Decision Case Number:O 7-2018

    The Parliamentary Ombudsman directs severe criticism towards the Prison and Probation Service

    Read more
  • Date of Decision:1/31/2020 Decision Case Number:7504-2018

    The Parliamentary Ombudsman directs criticism towards Nävertorp health care centre, region Sörmland, for responding to a request to disclose data from a patient’s journal without collecting the patient´s consent

    Read more
  • Date of Decision:1/28/2020 Decision Case Number:3965-2019

    Processing times at the Police Authority have become unacceptably long in two cases on contested payments regarding parking fines

    Read more
  • Date of Decision:1/27/2020 Decision Case Number:7177-2018

    The Parliamentary Ombudsman directs criticism towards the Migration Agency for dispatching an incomplete copy of a decision to an applicant’s representative

    Hide information

    Summary

    By mistake, the Migration Agency sent only the first page of a decision to an applicant’s representative when it was dispatched. From the document, one could easily have the impression that the decision document consisted of only a single page (1/1 noted at the top right of the decision document). However, the decision consisted of four pages.

    The Migration Agency is criticised for having sent out an incomplete version of the decision to the representative and for the long amount of time that passed before the mistake was noticed. The Migration Agency is also criticised for the fact that it was not evident, in the document, that the copy of the decision was not the full version. The Parliamentary Ombudsman is further critical of the fact that the Migration Agency has a document management system that makes it possible to send out the first page of a decision document without explicitly stating that only one of several pages of the document is being sent. The Parliamentary Ombudsman holds that it is a serious situation that information in a decision, in this case page numbering, can be changed retrospectively if it is not a matter of a correction. A decision document must be complete and unchangeable once it has been dispatched.

Search