99 Case No. 12/04693 A woman had for years received too little in housing benefit because the municipality had made an error when entering information about her income into the system. When the error was finally discovered, the woman thought that the municipality must owe her the shortfall in benefit. But the municipality replied that according to the Housing Benefit Act, it was the woman’s own duty to check the information on which the municipality based its calculation. The woman complained to the Social Tribunal about the municipality’s reply but the Tribunal agreed with the municipality. The Social Tribunal wrote that the housing benefit had been calculated on the basis of the original information and that the woman should herself have informed the municipality that the information should be changed. The woman now complained to the Ombudsman. In her opinion, the municipality and the Tribunal should address the fact that it was the municipality’s input entry error which was to blame for the wrongful calculation. After assessing the case, the Ombudsman asked the Social Tribunal on the woman’s behalf to address her points of view. On the basis of the Ombudsman’s request, the Tribunal re­ opened the case. It happens that a public authority will reopen a case and make a new decision after the Ombudsman has forwarded a complaint about the original decision to the authority. The fact that the authority reopens the case does not, however, necessarily mean that the case will have a different outcome. Case No. 13/05402 A mother and father contacted the Ombudsman in frustration because the municipality had not yet decided whether their son could be placed in a treatment facility. The parents did not live together but they both felt that they were not able to cope with looking after the son at home. They had great problems with the boy, who had been diagnosed with several psychiatric disorders. The Ombudsman forwarded the parents’ complaint to the municipality as a request from them that the case be resolved soon. At the same time, the Ombudsman informed the National Social Appeals Board of the case, and the Board enquired about the case with the municipality. After 1½ month, the municipality refused the parents’ application to have the son placed at a treatment facility. The municipality was of the opinion that the boy’s mother was good at giving him the support he needed and that he should therefore live with her. The Ombudsman may sometimes be able to help a complainant by sending a so-called expediting request to the authority on behalf of the complainant if a case has come to a standstill. The Ombudsman may also draw a higher authority’s attention to the situation.