appendix d: summaries of selected cases 2. B  an on contacting local authority by telephone and on appearing in person without a prior appointment in spouse’s case. Not a decision. A local authority decided that a man was not allowed to telephone the local authority’s family and labour market administration and that he was not allowed to appear in person without a prior appointment. The ban only applied to his contact with the local authority regarding his spouse’s case. The reason for the ban was that the man’s approaches up till then had been unpleasant in both tone and choice of words. Individual staff members described contact with him as degrading and transgressive. In addition, the frequency of the man’s approaches had imposed a disproportionate strain on the local authority. The Ombudsman did not criticise the local authority’s ban but came to the conclusion that the specific limitation of the man’s access to contacting the administration did not constitute a decision within the meaning of the Public Administration Act. The Ombudsman found it important that the restriction in the man’s contact with the local authority was not of a sufficiently appreciable nature to be considered a decision. The man had only been refused access to contact by telephone with regard to his spouse’s case, and he could appear in person by appointment. Regarding the decision concept, please see contrary outcome in Case No. 20082963-009, published in the 2010 Annual Report of the Parliamentary Ombudsman as Case No. 2010 20-3. (Case No. 2009-2756-009) 3. Ban on appearing in person at town hall was a decision A local authority decided to ban a woman from appearing in person at the town hall. The reason for the ban was a particular incident where the woman had acted in a threatening manner and yelled at a case worker in a lift in the town hall. The local authority informed the woman that the ban on appearing in person applied for three years for the time being, and the woman was given a name and telephone number of a contact person within the administration. When the woman’s representative asked for a more detailed explanation for the ban, the local authority added that there had been several prior incidents where the woman had been unpleasant and loud-mouthed towards various staff members in the administration. 95