SUMMARIES OF SELECTED STATEMENTS Under the Social Services Act, the use of door alarms is to be approved by the municipality before alarms are installed. However, the Ombudsman took for his basis that in the three cases, the door alarms had been installed without a decision having been made and thus without the necessary legal basis. The Ombudsman considered this a matter for severe criticism. The Ombudsman found no grounds for criticising the period of use of the alarms specified by the municipality in its subsequent decisions. However, he found it regrettable that the municipality had not reassessed the need of continuing to use the alarms after no later than eight months, as required by the Executive Order on Forcible Measures and Other Restrictions, in any of the cases. The Ombudsman also noted that the documentation was inadequate in several respects in all three cases. For this reason, among others, the Ombudsman was unable to reach a final conclusion as to whether the affected residents and their relatives/guardians had been adequately included before the municipality made its decisions. Further, the Ombudsman considered it very regrettable that the decisions were not communicated in writing to the affected residents and/or their relatives in two of the three cases. In addition, it was an error that incorrect (obsolete) guidance on appeal was given in the same two cases. The large number of errors made in the three cases caused the Ombudsman to express general concern about the procedures of the municipality. However, he noted at the same time that in the light of these cases, the municipality had initiated various measures of a general nature in order to ensure adherence to the rules of administrative law in future. 2017-13. No authority for secure institutions to wash young residents’ clothes to destroy illegal substances In connection with a monitoring visit to a secure institution, the Ombudsman’s visiting team became aware that the institution had an established practice of washing all the young residents’ clothes on their arrival. This was done, among other reasons, because it enabled the institution to destroy or reduce the quality of any illegal substances which might be hidden in the clothes. In a statement on the case, the Ombudsman explained when and in what ways secure institutions are permitted to use forcible measures and other restrictions. 113