40 CASE NO. 15/00329 CASE NO. 15/02323 When a single woman offered shelter to an old friend, her financial situation suffered. In the National Social Appeals Board’s assessment, the woman and the friend were living in a relationship similar to marriage in which they both contributed to the joint housekeeping and had the same advantages as cohabitees. The National Social Appeals Board therefore reduced the woman’s pension, among other things. She also had to repay part of the benefits she had received since the friend moved in. A citizen felt deprived of control and unfairly stigmatised as a slow payer when Udbetaling Danmark (the authority responsible for a number of public benefits) decided to pay his housing benefits to the housing association where he lived instead of into his own account. Therefore, he complained to the Ombudsman. But since the provisions within this field authorised Udbetaling Danmark to act in accordance with this new practice, the Ombudsman found that he did not have any grounds for investigating the matter. The woman herself said that she had only given shelter to her friend who was ill and homeless. There were no advantages for her in having him stay – on the contrary, the arrangement involved both inconvenience and cost. In 2015, 59 cases were rejected because the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction does not extend to Parliament – including laws and provisions passed by Parliament. Among other things, the Ombudsman asked the National Social Appeals Board what advantages the Board thought the woman gained by having the friend stay with her. The Board reopened the case and reached the conclusion that the woman gained no advantages from giving shelter to the friend and was still to be considered as single. The Ombudsman’s questions can be a first step towards a final statement expressing criticism. Sometimes, however, an authority chooses to reopen the case on the basis of the Ombudsman’s questions. When this happens, the Ombudsman does not write an actual statement. CASE NO. 15/01276 A young girl wrote in a complaint form on the Children’s Division’s website that she was unhappy living with her parents. She argued with them all the time, and they did not listen to her. ‘They only listen to themselves’, wrote the girl who wanted help to move away from home. A case officer from the Children’s Division phoned the girl, as she had requested. The case officer said to the girl that the Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints about parents but is very willing to help provide contact with the municipality where the girl might get help to move away from home. However, the case officer also suggested to the girl that she call the Children’s Telephone and ask for support to solve the conflict with her parents. That suggestion was well received by the girl. Together with the National Council for Children and the Danish children’s NGO Børns Vilkår (which runs the Children’s Telephone), the Children’s Division constitute the overall ‘children’s ombudsman’. Each body has its own individual strong point. The Children’s Telephone has been appointed the primary access point for children and young people. CASE NO. 15/01278 The Danish Transport Authority (now the Danish Transport and Construction Agency) fined a citizen because he had missed the deadline for either having his vehicle inspected or deregistered. But the citizen had not received the original inspection notice and was not aware that the vehicle was up for inspection until he received the reminder from the Danish Transport Authority. In reply to the citizen’s appeal of the fine, the Authority wrote that the inspection notice had been sent to the citizen’s digital mailbox (e-Boks) and that notice letters sent by digital post are considered received by the recipient at the time when the letter is available to the recipient. Moreover, the citizen himself is responsible for reading his digital post. The citizen complained to the Ombudsman who asked the Danish Transport Authority to explain to the citizen the steps the Authority had taken to determine that the inspection notice had actually been sent to his digital mailbox. It turned out that the inspection notice had not been sent to the citizen’s digital mailbox, but to the mailbox belonging to the previous owner of the vehicle. The fine was therefore cancelled by the Authority. In 2015, approx. 14,000 letters were sent from the Ombudsman’s office – digitally and by postal delivery.