49 CASE NO. 15/01601 CASE NO. 15/01615 When a citizen crashed with her disability vehicle, a side-view mirror and a side window had to be repaired. The citizen was of the opinion that the municipality should cover the expenses since she could not otherwise drive the vehicle lawfully. But the municipality was not prepared to take on the financial responsibility. The Social Services Act stipulated that ‘necessary additional costs for the daily conduct of life’ should be covered. However, the municipality wrote to the citizen that repairs of the citizen’s vehicle were not considered ordinary operating expenses in relation to being a vehicle owner: The expenditures were merely due to the citizen’s car accident – which had nothing to do with her disability. It was a case of sheer disqualification of authorities, thought a citizen: He had noticed that the same person had handled the case with the police and with the public prosecutor’s office when the citizen lodged a complaint about the police. The coincidence was due to the case officer’s job change. The National Social Appeals Board agreed with the municipality. In the Ombudsman’s assessment, he would not be able to reach a more advantageous result for the citizen, and therefore he decided that he would not take further steps in the case.. According to section 16(1) of the Ombudsman Act, the Ombudsman determines whether a complaint offers sufficient grounds for investigation. However, the Ombudsman found that the authority was not disqualified, and the case officer was also not personally disqualified in the case – as she would have been if she had processed the case in both instances. But the case officer had only been in charge of minor case proceedings, both with the police and with the public prosecutor’s office. The actual processing of the case had been undertaken by the Independent Police Complaints Authority, and later on by the public prosecutor’s office. The public prosecutor had made a decision regarding the case prior to the case officer’s employment. When the Ombudsman has to declare himself disqualified to act in a case, Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee appoints a so-called ad hoc Ombudsman to process the case on behalf of the Ombudsman. This happened five times in 2015. CASE NO. 15/03366 When a citizen received a prize and a five-figured amount, he immediately donated the money to two associations. Nevertheless, he was taxed on the amount. The citizen appealed to the Danish Customs and Tax Administration (SKAT). While he was waiting for the Customs and Tax Administration’s decision, he received a demand for repayment of housing benefits from Udbetaling Danmark (the authority responsible for a number of public benefits) which had been informed that he had received extra earnings. The citizen asked the Ombudsman to assist him in achieving a postponement of the repayment. Since the citizen had to appeal to the National Social Appeals Board through Udbetaling Danmark first, the Ombudsman could only help the citizen by passing on his complaint to the authorities as an appeal. But fortunately for the citizen, the appeal to the National Social Appeals Board had a suspensory effect – which meant that Udbetaling Danmark could not demand repayment of the housing benefits until the National Social Appeals Board had made a decision.   Pursuant to section 14 of the Ombudsman Act, the Ombudsman cannot process a complaint until other channels of appeal have been exhausted. In 2015, the Ombudsman passed on 1,200 complaints to authorities on those grounds. CASE NO. 15/00315 Breast cancer, severe depression and burnout syndrome were not sufficient grounds for granting a 59-year-old woman disability pension. Based on the medical information, the municipality and the National Social Appeals Board assessed that it could not be ruled out that the woman was able to improve her working capacity. Therefore, the woman should attend a rehabilitation programme for a period of two years so that her working ability prospects could be assessed. The woman did not wish to undergo a work ability test. She wrote to the Ombudsman that her medicine had no effect and that both her physician and her psychologist disagreed with the authorities’ assessment. She also wrote that the uncertainty as to whether she would receive the desired disability pension had worsened her mental health. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it seemed unlikely that he could help the woman. The Ombudsman did not have the expertise to decide on the assessments and deliberations behind the decision regarding the woman’s possibility of receiving disability pension. The Ombudsman has no medical expertise available, and therefore he is normally unable to take a position on a medical assessment – but can merely investigate whether the authorities have taken the assessment into account when they made their decision.