The Swedish Pensions Agency is severely criticised for its slow processing and incorrect handling of a case concerning housing supplement

Summary of the decision: An individual complained about the time taken by the Swedish Pensions Agency to process his case concerning housing supplement, adding that the agency had also failed to deal with his request to determine the matter without further delay pursuant to Section 12 of the Swedish Administrative Procedure Act (SFS 2017:900). The processing time in the housing supplement case was just over one year. The Parliamentary Ombudsman holds that such a slow processing time is unacceptable, even if the case required a certain amount of investigation.

Regarding the request under Section 12 of the Administrative Procedure Act, it emerged that, rather than determining the matter or refusing the request in a separate decision, the Swedish Pensions Agency sent notification of a substantial delay pursuant to Section 11 of the same act. By this time, the processing of his case concerning housing supplement had been ongoing for 10 months. After two further requests from the individual to determine the matter, the Swedish Pensions Agency finally responded to his request, by which time the deadline of four weeks prescribed in Section 12 of the Administrative Procedure Act had long since passed. The Parliamentary Ombudsman is critical of the deficiencies in processing the individual’s request for the matter to be determined without further delay and also states that the Swedish Pensions Agency should have notified him of a substantial delay considerably earlier than was actually the case.

The decision also states that the Swedish Pensions Agency limited the number of notifications of substantial delays sent to individuals in order to evaluate whether this would result in an increased number of letters and calls to the agency. The Parliamentary Ombudsman is critical of the agency’s deliberate failure to apply Section 11 of the Administrative Procedure Act concerning notification of substantial delays, stating that there is no reason to investigate whether compliance with a legal obligation would lead to an increased workload.

In conclusion, the Parliamentary Ombudsman makes certain remarks concerning the agency’s duty to assist with JO’s review.