CASES | 31 Case No. 19/00801 Case No. 19/00717 ‘Nobody can keep up with the bus schedule anymore unless they check up on it every time on the app on DOT’s website. And a lot of people do not do that.’ This is what a senior citizen wrote to the Ombudsman. She was not happy because a public transport operator had permanently removed the printed bus schedules and lists at the bus stops. The public transport operator pointed to the fact that the information was available digitally on mobile phones. The woman wrote to the Ombudsman that she had already complained to the Danish Transport, Construction and Housing Authority, two municipalities in the Copenhagen area and DOT (Your Public Transport) of which the public transport operator was part. After receiving the complaint, the Ombudsman found that the public transport operator’s board had decided to reinstate the schedules at all the 14,500 bus stops because many citizens were having a difficult time getting information about the buses’ schedules etc. On that background, the Ombudsman did not proceed with the case. When the Ombudsman receives a complaint, he decides if he is going to investigate the case further. If it turns out that in the meantime the citizen’s problem has been solved, he often closes the case without further investigation. A journalist wrote to the Ombudsman that her case of request for access to information dragged out at the Danish Business Authority. The journalist asked if she could complain to the Ombudsman or if she had to go to another authority first. One of the Ombudsman’s employees replied to the complaint by telephoning the journalist and giving her information on the rules of the Danish Access to Public Administration Files Act about processing times in a case of request for access to information. The journalist would then send a complaint to the Danish Business Authority and await a reply before complaining to the Ombudsman, if necessary. In agreement with the journalist, the Ombudsman did not submit a written reply to her enquiry. It happens on a regular basis that a written enquiry to the Ombudsman gets a response by telephone. Case No. 19/00893 A man had been refused home detention with electronic monitoring because he had failed to show up for urine testing at a previous occasion. Therefore, the Prison and Probation Service assessed that the man was going to have problems respecting the condition of not using euphoriants. The man’s sister wrote to the Ombudsman that her brother had not turned up for the check due to health issues. The Ombudsman pointed to the fact that the Prison and Probation Service had assessed whether her brother was likely to respect the conditions for home detention with electronic monitoring. The Ombudsman did not find that he was able to assess the matter better than the Prison and Probation Service. He therefore wrote to the sister that he did not proceed with the case. Usually, the Ombudsman is not able to fully examine the assessment made by the authorities unless special circumstances exist.