28 | Case No. 19/03436 ‘We were walking quietly with our dog on a leash when the cow suddenly took a dislike to the dog and ran after us. It knocked me down and butted me.’ A woman wrote this, among other things, to the Ombudsman after a walk in a municipal forest. The woman was dissatisfied because she could not get compensation for the expenses she had had in connection with a sick note after the incident. The municipality’s insurance company had informed her that the municipality was not liable to pay damages, among other things because the cows were not owned by the municipality but by a farmer. CASES Case No. 19/04405 A mother was very much against her daughter having contact with her father. However, the Agency of Family Law had made the decision that the daughter was to have contact with her father again. The decision could – via the Agency of Family Law – be brought before the Family Court. The mother had already appealed against the decision to the Agency of Family Law but even so she wanted the Ombudsman to look at the case. The Ombudsman wrote to the mother that the Ombudsman does not consider complaints about decisions by the Agency of Family Law if they can be brought before the Family Court. some The jurisdiction of the Ombudsman does not extend to the courts of justice – for instance the Family Court. According to practice, nor does the Ombudsman consider cases or matters which are being processed by the courts or which are expected to be brought before the courts, or where the legislation lays down particularly easy access to judicial review. The Ombudsman decided not to initiate an investigation since it was a civil law issue whether the municipality was liable to pay damages to the woman and since the Ombudsman first and foremost deals with public law issues. In his opinion, the case had to be decided by the courts if occasion should arise. The Ombudsman very rarely investigates complaints about refusals of compensation. Case No. 18/01700 A local newspaper wrote that a woman had been refused an electric scooter which she found she needed after surgery. The grounds for the municipality’s refusal were that politically it had not yet been decided if temporary technical aids were to be a part of the municipality’s service level. The Ombudsman asked for the municipality’s statement in the case. He pointed out that the municipality according to the Social Services Act is required to make decisions about temporary technical aids based on a specific individual assessment. The municipality then informed the Ombudsman that the woman’s case had been reopened because it was an error that the municipality had not made a specific individual assessment. The municipality was also going to change its practice and in future consider applications for temporary technical aids specifically and individually. The Ombudsman may decide to open owninitiative investigations. Among other things, this may occur based on media coverage.