Who bears the risk if a letter does not arrive? –– The letter containing the summons to a meeting differed from the other documents of the case by not being a copy, but printed on ordinary letterhead paper with an amendment written by hand directly on the printout sent to the Ombudsman. –– The local authority’s own statements about the dispatch of another letter to the woman in the same case were contradictory. –– A statement on the case sent by the local authority to the Employment ­Appeals Board was dated 18 days before it was sent. –– The woman’s union had demonstrated that errors had been made in the ­dispatch of mail by the local authority in other cases. Some letters had ­erroneously been sent to someone other than the addressee. The issue of sickness benefit payment was dependent on whether the woman had failed without reasonable grounds to contribute to the local authority’s follow-up. Of course it was crucial whether she was aware that she had been summoned to the information meeting, i.e. whether the summons had reached her. On the basis of all the information about the local authority’s handling of mail dispatch, the Ombudsman was of the opinion that the Employment Appeals Board should reconsider the case. The Ombudsman also pointed out that a decision to stop paying sickness benefit and therefore to deprive a citizen of his or her subsistence basis was an exceptionally intrusive intervention. The Employment Appeals Board reopened the case, but did not change its original decision. It still took the view that the local authority had discharged the burden of proof that the letter had been sent. On this basis, the Ombudsman recommended that the Civil Affairs Agency grant the woman free legal aid so that the decision could be tested by the courts, as the courts are better able to assess evidence because they can examine witnesses etc., while the Ombudsman processes cases on a written basis. The Civil Affairs Agency has now granted the woman free legal aid. 43