142 annual report 2013 The municipality subsequently made a decision that the woman had to repay day care subsidy as well as ordinary and extra child benefit for a period of time. The municipality likewise decided that the man had to repay ordinary and extra child benefit for the same period of time. The Social Tribunal upheld these decisions. The grounds given by the authorities for their decisions were that they assessed that the woman and the man had not been effectively single during the period in question and that they had received the benefits without being entitled to them and in bad faith. The woman and the man both complained to the Ombudsman, who closed their cases stating that in his opinion, the relevant appeals body should have the opportunity to consider a few specified circumstances relating to the basic issue of their entitlement to the benefits and consequently also the issue of repayment. The Ombudsman forwarded their complaints to the Social Tribunal as a request from the woman and the man that the relevant appeals body consider the circumstances specified and inform them of the outcome. The Ombudsman asked to be notified of the replies to the woman and the man. The Ombudsman was subsequently informed by the National Social Appeals Board – which had in the meantime become the appeals body for decisions within the areas in question – that the Board had reopened and made a new decision in both cases, changing the decisions of the municipality and the Social Tribunal. The National Social Appeals Board found that there was not suffi­ cient information to render it probable that the woman and the man, respectively, lived in a marriage-like relationship and maintained a joint household with the other person during the period in question. Thus, the municipality and the Social Tribunal did not have adequate evidence to make decisions on repayment of the benefits. p. PRIME MINISTER’S OFFICE No cases concluded in 2013 were selected for publication as part of the Annual Report.