94 | Vicar Per Møller. Maribo Cathedral. 17/04311 A woman was dissatisfied because the Greater Copenhagen Light Rail had denied her access to the tenders from the first round of tendering for the light rail project. The Ombudsman contacted the Procurement Appeals Board, which informed him that the Board considered appeals against decisions about access to information regarding public tendering procedures. Hence, the Ombudsman forwarded the woman’s complaint to the Procurement Appeals Board in order for the Board to determine whether it could consider the woman’s complaint about the decision from the Greater Copenhagen Light Rail on access. The Appeals Board then considered the woman’s complaint. The Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which another authority can consider. On re­ ceiving a complaint, the Ombudsman therefore checks if there is a channel of complaint or appeal which has not been exhausted. 18/02308 A daily newspaper brought a number of articles about a mayor’s visit to a hairdressing salon in the municipality. During the visit, a video about the salon had been recorded and was now to be found on YouTube. The video showed the mayor getting a haircut and which hair products the hairdresser used. According to a law professor quoted in the newspaper, it was a violation of the local authority mandate that the mayor in this way participated in a kind of advertisement for a specific business. The Ombudsman made an enquiry about the case to the National Social Appeals Board which had already asked the municipality for a statement. The National Social Appeals Board came to the conclusion that the municipality had violated the local authority mandate. The Ombudsman subsequently stated that he would take no further action in the matter. The Ombudsman may take up a matter for investigation on his own initiative, based on for instance media coverage. 18/02625 During the summer of 2018, the Ombudsman received a number of enquiries from citizens who had received a letter from the municipality about a freeze on land tax increases on their properties. In the meantime, the municipality was going to grant the citizens a loan corresponding to the increase. A woman wrote, among other things, that it was an incapacitation of her that she could not herself decide whether she wanted a loan or to pay straightaway. In his replies to the citizens, the Ombudsman wrote that he could not help because the scheme on a freeze on land tax increases for the years 20182020 was prescribed by law and that it was evident from the legislative history of the law that the loan would be granted automatically. For that reason, the individual owner did not have to apply to the municipality for the loan, and the owner could not reject the scheme. The jurisdiction of the Ombudsman does not extend to complaints about Parliament and the contents of acts passed by Parliament. Nor can he otherwise engage in questions of a legisla­ tive political nature.