The City District Council of Bromma in the City of Stockholm is severely criticised for its slow processing of four cases relating to personal assistance pursuant to the Act concerning Support and Service for Persons with Certain Functional Impairments, and for breaching its notification obligation pursuant to Section 11 of the Administrative Procedure Act

Summary of the decision: In four cases pursuant to the Act (1993:387) concerning Support and Service for Persons with Certain Functional Impairments, individuals complained to the Parliamentary Ombudsmen that processing by the City District Council of Bromma in the City of Stockholm had been too slow. In one case, processing had been ongoing for 10 months before a decision was reached and in another 14 months. In two of the cases, processing time was around 18 months.

In his decision, the Parliamentary Ombudsman underlines that the Act concerning Support and Service for Persons with Certain Functional Impairments confers certain rights, including the right of the individual to have their case heard without undue delay. The Parliamentary Ombudsman notes that the processing times in the four cases in question were excessive and significantly exceeded the guidelines on cases relating to personal assistance previously issued by the Parliamentary Ombudsmen. The council has shown no urgency in processing the cases and ensuring that decisions could be reached within a reasonable period of time. In some cases, no or only a few procedural measures had been taken during the period. Processing has been delayed and the individuals were forced to wait for decisions on personal assistance for an unreasonably long time. The council has not processed the cases as promptly as the Administrative Procedure Act (SFS 2017:900) requires, something that the

Parliamentary Ombudsman is critical of. In some cases, the Parliamentary Ombudsman also criticises the council for failing to document procedural measures in the manner required by law. Among other things, inadequate documentation has made it impossible to subsequently follow the process and see which measures the council has taken. Furthermore, the Parliamentary Ombudsman notes that in none of the cases has the council considered whether the individual should be notified that the matter will be substantially delayed, as required by Section 11 of the Administrative Procedure Act. The Parliamentary Ombudsman also criticises the council’s processing of the cases in this regard.

In summary, the Parliamentary Ombudsman considers the council to be deserving of severe criticism for its deficient processing of the four cases.