88 annual report 2010 14. Ministry of social affairs The following three cases concluded in 2010 were selected for publication in the Annual Report: 1. Refused grant for replacement of exhaust pipe ­pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Order A local authority refused a disabled man a grant for replacement of an exhaust pipe in his car. The social tribunal confirmed the refusal. The man had previously been granted a loan to purchase the car and had received a grant for special refitting of the car, including a lift. The car had to be modified in order for the lift to be fitted. This included a special modification of the exhaust pipe as the lift could not be fitted otherwise. When the exhaust pipe later on had to be replaced, the authorities did not find that the pipe was a special modification which entitled the man to a grant pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Order. The pipe did not constitute a change of the car’s function due to the man’s disability. In addition, an exhaust pipe was standard equipment on all cars. The Ombudsman stated that a special modification did not have to be designed to facilitate the disabled citizen’s use of the car. It could – as in this case − also be designed to facilitate the fitting of necessary aids in the car. As the exhaust pipe had been specially adapted, it could no longer be termed standard equipment. Therefore, and with reference to the principle of compensation, the Ombudsman found it doubtful whether the local authority could refuse to assist the man with at least the extra cost resulting from the special modification of the exhaust pipe. The Ombudsman recommended that the social tribunal reopen the case or refer the case back to the local authority for renewed consideration. (Case No. 2008-3563-055) 2. Reliability of postal services, appeal deadline and exemption from deadline A man complained because the social tribunal had refused to consider his appeal to the tribunal on the grounds that the appeal deadline of four weeks had been exceeded. The man alleged that he had not received the local authority’s decision until four days after the date of the decision, and that the appeal deadline had therefore not been exceeded.