128 | Lifeguard Michael Sørensen. Maribo Swimming Facility. 16/02658 and 17/03093 ‘It can’t be right that my farm is not considered a commercial property!’ This was a farmer’s reaction when he could not get a tax deduction in the drainage contribution for the amount of water he used for his small beef cattle livestock. The Ombudsman forwarded the farmer’s complaint to the Ministry of Energy, Utilities and Climate in order for the Ministry to make a statement about the understanding of the concept ‘commercial property’ in the Act on Wastewater Payment. The farmer was now given a thorough guidance about the concept by the Danish Energy Agency – and the case ended with him getting the deduction which in his opinion he was entitled to. In certain cases, the Ombudsman initially chooses to forward a complaint to the relevant ministry. In this way, the ministry is given the opportunity to make a general statement on the understanding of the ministry’s own rules. This approach can be sufficient in finding a solution for the individual citizen. 18/04977 ‘A small dog murders an even smaller dog’, wrote a man in his complaint about the police investigation of the attack on his dog which had been savaged. The police had started to investigate the matter but had decided to end the investigation. The dog owner was dissatisfied with this because it meant that the case was not solved. Therefore, he made an appeal against the police’s decision to the State Prosecutor. The State Prosecutor had made a decision in the case in July 2017 but it was not until November 2018 that the Ombudsman received a complaint from the dog owner. There is a deadline of twelve months for lodging a complaint with the Ombudsman. Since the deadline was not observed here, the Ombudsman declined to consider the case. In 2018, the Ombudsman rejected 119 com­ plaints solely because they had been lodged later than twelve months after the grievance took place. 18/02305 A female old-age pensioner had too large a fortune for her to be eligible for health service supplement. In the written refusal to grant the supplement, the municipality had also informed the woman of the balance of her husband’s bank account. It was understandable that the municipality had to know the husband’s bank account balance in order to assess if his wife was eligible for health service supplement. But the husband wondered why the municipality passed on such information. In his complaint to the Ombudsman, he wrote: ‘The bank considers such information very confidential in opposition to the municipality, and the bank is not willing to inform my wife of these matters’. The Ombudsman forwarded the complaint to the municipality so that the municipality itself could inform the husband of which rules allowed the municipality to pass on information of his bank account balance. The Ombudsman also advised the man on how to complain to the Data Protection Agency. According to practice, the Ombudsman does not normally consider matters which the rel­ evant authority has not had an opportunity to consider.