The Swedish Parliamentary Ombudsmen (JO)

Latest decision summaries

• Date of Decision:6/23/2020 Decision Case Number:8416-2018

  The Parliamentary Ombudsman directs criticism towards the Social Building Committee in Åre Municipality for the slow processing of a referred building permit in a case where construction had been completed

  Read more

  Summary

  A Building Committee granted a building permit for a holiday home and garage in 2013. The board subsequently approved modifications to the main building in a decision in 2015, and construction took place. Following a complaint by a neighbour, the case was referred back to the board for reconsideration in September 2017. The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s investigation concerns the board’s handling of the referral. The board is criticised for having exceeded the ten-week deadline prescribed by the Planning and Building Act to announcing decisions on permit cases. The Parliamentary Ombudsman also points out that it was a referred case, which must be given priority, with measures already taken against which a neighbour had requested action.

• Date of Decision:6/23/2020 Decision Case Number:6963-2018

  The Parliamentary Ombudsman directs criticism towards the Building and Environment Committee in Höganäs Municipality for the slow processing of a referred building permit in a case where construction had been completed

  Read more

  Summary

  A Building Committee had granted a building permit for a holiday home in 2011, after which construction took place. Following a complaint by a neighbour, the case was referred back to the board. A subsequent permit decision about the holiday home had also been referred back to the board. The question of building permits for the holiday home had been referred back to the board on three occasions in total. The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s investigation concerns the board’s handling of the latest referral. In its decision, the Parliamentary Ombudsman points out that the examination of the building permit concerned measures already carried out, which a neighbour had asked the board to take action against. The Parliamentary Ombudsman notes that it took two months for the board to start processing the referred permit case and nine months for the board to instruct the applicant to supplement their application, which is not sufficiently prompt. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, it is not acceptable that the total processing time for the referred case was one year and eight months.

• Date of Decision:6/23/2020 Decision Case Number:3063-2020

  The Parliamentary Ombudsman directs criticism towards the Municipal Board in Orust Municipality for having made a decision without legal support, not to execute a decision on home care services for persons temporarily resident in the municipality

  Read more

  Summary

  In March 2020, the Chair of the Municipal Board of Orust Municipality made a decision that because of Covid-19 the municipality would not grant assistance to persons temporarily resident in the municipality. This decision was valid until further notice.
  
  When an individual intends to spend a short period of time in a municipality other than their municipality of residence and requires assistance for this because of, for example, old age, the municipality of temporary residence is obliged on request to enact the decision of the municipality of residence.
  
  In its decision, the Parliamentary Ombudsman confirms that the municipality of temporary residence has an obligation to enact decisions on measures made by the municipality of residence. A municipality has no legal means to decide for itself whether or not to comply with applicable legislation. The Municipal Board is therefore criticised for making a decision that has no legal support.

• Date of Decision:6/15/2020 Decision Case Number:6172-2018

  The Social Insurance Agency is criticised for having issued instructions that are in breach of applicable law

  Read more

  Summary

  The Social Insurance Agency has prescribed, in their own instructions, in the form of a so-called information memorandum (IM), that in certain cases the agency must make exceptions from the requirement for a request for a review to be made in writing. The requirement that a request for review must be made in writing is set out in Chapter 113, Section 7 of the Social Insurance Code. In its decision, the Parliamentary Ombudsman states that the Social Insurance Agency may not decide, for whatever purpose, that processing may be carried out in a way that is in breach of applicable law. The Social Insurance Agency is criticised for drawing up the information memorandum.

   

• Date of Decision:6/15/2020 Decision Case Number:5796-2019

  The Parliamentary Ombudsman directs severe criticism towards the Enforcement Authority for the processing of applications for an order to pay, etc.

  Read more

  Summary

  In autumn 2019, the Parliamentary Ombudsman received a large number of reports with complaints against the Enforcement Authority concerning the processing of orders to pay. The Parliamentary Ombudsman decided to investigate five cases in which the authority, among other things, was late with the registration of manual applications.
  
  In October 2018, the authority was due to launch a new IT system for applications for orders to pay, but the switch was postponed for one year. In spring 2019, however, certain measures were taken ahead of the IT switch, which affected the initial processing times. The investigation by the Parliamentary Ombudsman has shown that the times for the manual applications had been unacceptably long for almost a year, and that there had been a significant difference in the initial processing time between these and the mechanical applications at times. This resulted in inconvenience to individuals.
  
  The Enforcement Authority has not been able to comply with the urgency requirement under the Freedom of the Press Act for the disclosure of documents. It has been difficult for applicants to make contact with the authority and obtain answers to questions. The authority has not met the requirements in areas including service, information and efficiency. The Parliamentary Ombudsman also considers that the information provided on the website about processing was inadequate and makes statements about the notification obligation under Section 11 of the Administrative Act when a decision is expected to be significantly delayed.
  
  The Parliamentary Ombudsman believes that the Enforcement Authority was deficient in the planning and launch of the new IT system and that management also failed to take account of the administrative legal requirements that apply to the processing of cases. The Parliamentary Ombudsman emphasise the responsibility of management to ensure that the authority’s duties are performed in a way that is legally correct, efficient and simple for the general public and individuals.

• Date of Decision:6/12/2020 Decision Case Number:368-2019

  Criticism of the Health and Social Care Inspectorate for the incorrect application of a provision on the competence of relatives to report complaints, etc.

  Read more

  Summary

  In a report submitted to the Health and Social Care Inspectorate, a parent of an adult patient complained about the medical care that the patient had received. After the Health and Social Care Inspectorate had conducted certain investigative measures, the patient’s wife, being the legal guardian, submitted a letter to the Health and Social Care Inspectorate, stating that she did not want the complaints to be investigated. The Health and Social Care Inspectorate subsequently decided to discontinue any further processing of the case. In its statement to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Health and Social Care Inspectorate stated that the patient’s wife was considered to be most closely related to the patient and thus competent to submit the complaints.
  
  The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman states that the applicable provision of the Patient Safety Act must be considered to mean that the Health and Social Care Inspectorate, in cases where the patient cannot report the matter personally, must examine complaints when notified by a person deemed to be related to the patient. As the provision is designed, the competence of the notifier in itself can hardly be affected by the fact that another close relative disagrees with the substance of the complaint. There is no specific ranking of related parties set out in the Patient Safety Act, nor does the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman consider that the statements in the preparatory work on the provision in question support such an application. On the contrary, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman considers that the preparatory work suggests that the group of competent notifiers may comprise several different persons. The Health and Social Care Inspectorate is criticised for the way in which the Inspectorate applied the provision in question.
  
  The Health and Social Care Inspectorate also receives criticism for a deficient justification of the decision in question.

• Date of Decision:6/4/2020 Decision Case Number:2050-2018

  Criticism of psychiatric care units in three regions for imposing procedures for patients with ADHD having to agree to supervised urine sample tests in order to be considered for treatment with drugs that stimulate the central nervous system

  Read more

  Summary

  The three regions applied procedures in which it is mandatory for all patients with a diagnosis of ADHD to submit urine samples under supervision in order to receive treatment with drugs that stimulate the central nervous system. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman considers that it is not justified to impose a general requirement for regular urine sampling as a condition for the treatment in question and therefore criticises the regions for having designed and applied guidelines that impose such requirements. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman emphasises the importance of adequate information in order to enable patients to make informed decisions and to guarantee the voluntary nature of care. Unauthorised pressure must not be applied, although sampling may, after an individual assessment, constitute a necessary precondition for a given treatment to be compatible with basic patient safety requirements.
  
  The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman require that the regions amend the current guidelines so that the requirement for individual assessments and truly voluntary participation is clearly emphasised. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman also believes that the National Board of Health and Welfare and the Medical Products Agency should supplement their recommendations to make it absolutely clear that drug screening (urine or blood tests) requires an individual assessment and satisfactory information being given to the patient.

• Date of Decision:6/4/2020 Decision Case Number:5286-2018

  The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman directs criticism towards the Public Healthcare Services Administration in Region Stockholm for the deficient handling of a change in certain guidelines for the prescription of aids

  Read more

  Summary

  In Region Stockholm there are criteria for the prescription of aids specified in a hierarchy of needs in the web-based Accessibility Guide. An administrator at the Public Healthcare Services Administration changed the text in respect of the prescription criteria for compression material in such a way that one line of text was inserted stating that compression material cannot be prescribed for pain and that the diagnosis of lipedema is replaced by lipolymphedema.
  
  The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman confirms that these changes restrict who may have compression bandages prescribed. Lipolymphedema is the most severe form of lipedema, and the guidelines in force before the change stated that it was not possible to deduce that only those patients who had reached this stage should be eligible for compression bandages. The addition that prescription cannot take place for pain could also result in fewer patients being deemed eligible for the prescription of compression material. The changes therefore have the effect, according to the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, that the regulations on the prescription of compression material have been changed, and not simply clarified. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman also states that the medical conditions that may be eligible for such aids do not derive directly from the overall criteria decided by the board. The design of the more detailed prescription rules thus involves an independent assessment. It was therefore not a question of an executive decision that cannot be appealed on which employees within a region can make a decision without delegation and that does not need to be recorded in the minutes. The incorrect starting point that this was an executive decision has resulted in a decision being made that was irregular and not documented. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman directs criticism towards the Public Healthcare Services Administration for its deficient handling of the case.
  
  The Public Healthcare Services Administration is also criticised for the fact that a request for disclosure of public documents in some parts was not dealt with until after the Parliamentary Ombudsman had opened an investigation into the case.