The Health and Welfare Committee in Sigtuna Municipality is severely criticised for inadequate management of three rulings referred back to the committee by the administrative court in a case related to personal assistance

Summary of the decision: An individual applied to a municipal committee for continued personal assistance pursuant to the Act (SFS 1993:387) concerning Support and Service for Persons with Certain Functional Impairments. The committee rejected the application, whereupon the decision was appealed to the administrative court, which found that the person was entitled to personal assistance and referred the case back to the committee for further processing. Despite this, the committee reached a new decision to reject the application for personal assistance. This decision was also appealed and the case was referred back to the administrative court, which once again found that the person was entitled to the intervention. The committee then once again decided to reject the application and this decision was also appealed, whereupon the administrative court referred the case back to the committee for a third time. The committee subsequently decided to reject the application for personal assistance once again. After this decision was appealed, the administrative court concluded that there was no point in once again referring the matter back to the committee, whereupon the court decided to try the case itself.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman takes a very dim view of the committee’s disregard for the administrative court’s rulings and express instructions on three occasions in the same case. Moreover, on one occasion the committee applied the wrong legislation when assessing the case, something that the Parliamentary Ombudsman finds remarkable. The Parliamentary Ombudsman notes that the committee’s processing of the case has been inconsistent with its obligations pursuant to the Act concerning Support and Service for Persons with Certain Functional Impairments, and that there has been a fundamental lack of knowledge within the committee. As a consequence of the committee’s processing, the individual was forced to wait for over four years for their case to be finally heard, which is completely unacceptable. The Parliamentary Ombudsman states that the committee deserves severe criticism for its deficient processing of the case.