16 A woman employed under the flexible job scheme was dismissed when a local authority had to make cuts. Among other things, the Ombudsman criticised that the local authority had not tried to find her another position, which it had an increased obligation to do because she was employed under the flexible job scheme. The Ombudsman recommended that the local authority reconsider the case. It then compensated the woman for her dismissal. During a deportation, a 16-year-old Afghan boy went berserk in Copenhagen Airport. He tried to bang his head on a concrete staircase to avoid being returned to Afghanistan with his mother and two younger siblings. Several police officers had to restrain him and talk to him for several hours, together with his mother, to calm him down. An Ombudsman employee observed the entire incident and accompanied the family and police officers on the flight to Frankfurt, where the family were handed over to Afghan security personnel. In 2011, the Ombudsman expressed criticism, made recommendations, etc. in 153 cases. In April 2011, the Ombudsman established a so-called deportation unit to monitor the process in connection with police deportations of foreigners staying illegally in Denmark. From April to December 2011, the unit participated in four accompanied deportations. The Ombudsman representative subsequently reported that the police officers had used force against the boy, but that it had been proportional to the situation. The Ombudsman asked why Afghan security guards had taken over in Frankfurt and who was responsible for the rest of the journey to Afghanistan. The response was that the ‘route’ had been discontinued, and the Ombudsman closed the case. After a man had failed to attend a meeting with the local authority, his sickness benefit was stopped. The local authority sent the decision by post to the man in early February 2011, but he did not appeal the decision until April. The man’s appeal was rejected by the appeal body – the Employment Appeals Board – which stated that the four-week appeal deadline had been exceeded. However, when the Ombudsman looked into the matter, it turned out that the man had not received the decision from the local authority in February at all, as it had been returned to sender because the address was wrong. The man stated that he had not received the decision until April and had appealed the following day. In addition, it even turned out that he had previously asked the local authority to communicate by e-mail. The Employment Appeals Board then decided to consider the appeal and the Ombudsman closed the case. The Ombudsman was subsequently informed of the decision made by the Employment Appeals Board. Occasionally, the Ombudsman asks to be kept informed of further developments in a case even after it has formally been closed. On other occasions, the authorities provide information on their own initiative.