40 Case No. 13/04866 Case No. 13/02045 A woman was acquitted of social benefit fraud in a criminal case, as the court did not agree with the municipality that she and her former spouse had had ‘real joint finances’. Nevertheless, the municipality and the regional Social Tribunal refused to reopen the issue of whether the woman was to repay a number of social benefits – a total of more than DKK 150,000. During a monitoring visit to a local prison, the Ombudsman’s monitoring team found the visiting room to be not very homely. The local prison was keen to support the inmates’ relationship with their children, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was an added reason why it would be a good idea if the visiting room were to be made more homely. When he received the woman’s complaint about the authorities’ decision, the Ombudsman was puzzled; according to general rules of administrative law, a citizen has a right to a reopening of his or her case if, for instance, a court of law makes a decision which has a bearing on the case. In an e-mail to the National Social Appeals Board, which was now the appeal authority in such cases, the Ombudsman asked the authorities to take a position on the issue. The local prison management said that money for new furniture for the visiting room had already been applied for and granted. The management agreed with the Ombudsman’s suggestion that the visiting room could be better decorated. Some months later, the Ombudsman read in a local newspaper that the walls of the visiting room had been beautifully decorated by an artist. The National Social Appeals Board replied that the Board had decided to reopen the case, and the Ombudsman then decided to take no further action in the matter. The National Social Appeals Board subsequently changed the outcome of the case so that the woman would not have to repay the social benefits. The Ombudsman’s monitoring visits are not only about checking whether the rules and regulations are observed. The Ombudsman also endeavours to assess whether conditions are acceptable to the people who spend all or part of their lives at the institution. Case No. 12/04364 When requesting statements on a case from the authorities, the Ombudsman typically asks the authorities a number of questions in order to throw more light on the case. It happens that the authorities choose to reopen a case already when they receive the Ombudsman’s critical questions. No grounds were given when a manager of a youth club was dismissed after just one day’s work. The manager complained to the Ombudsman, who tried, among other things, to identify the information on which the dismissal had been based. After a longish correspondence with the municipality, it became clear that the background for the dismissal was a slightly older conflict between the complainant and some of the staff at a school. The Ombudsman then forwarded the case to the municipality so that the municipality could consider whether the dismissal had been justified. However, the complainant was satisfied with knowing, among other things, why he had been dismissed, and he did not want the municipality to take any further action in the case. Consequently, the case was closed without a new decision from the municipality. In 2013, the Ombudsman received about 100 complaints regarding personnel matters.