86 ANNUAL REPORT 2017 Finally, the Ombudsman could not criticise that the documents of the operational case file concerning the writer – including the copy of the diaries in their entirety – had since 2010 been kept for posterity under archiving legislation etc. The Ombudsman agreed with the authorities that despite the writer’s copyright, PET had the required legal authority to gather and copy his diaries, keep the copy and archive it for historical purposes. 2017-14. Criticism of processing times following reorganisation and of the time it took to reduce them As part of a reorganisation within the police force, the processing of cases concerning driving licences, automatic speed checks, arms and miscellaneous licences and permits was moved from the individual police districts to two administrative centres, one in eastern Denmark and one in western Denmark. The Ombudsman opened investigations of the processing times of the two administrative centres on his own initiative and monitored developments in their processing times for a period of time. On that basis, the Ombudsman noted that there were several, partly linked causes of the backlog of cases which had built up at the administrative centres – and the resulting increase in processing times. Among other things, the Ombudsman noted that it appeared that allowance had not been made for the pressure on resources which would be associated with the establishment of the administrative centres, for instance as a result of the need to train new staff and for the establishment of new and/or changed administrative procedures. In addition, expectations of when rationalisation gains would be achieved as a result of the reorganisation were unrealistic. Thus, efficiency gains of 15 per cent already in the first year had been anticipated in connection with the establishment of the two administrative centres. The Ombudsman stated that the errors of judgement made in connection with the establishment of the two administrative centres had resulted in their processing times being considerably longer than acceptable in a large number of cases for a long period of time. That had had consequences for a significant number of citizens, which the Ombudsman found regrettable. In the Ombudsman’s opinion it may in certain circumstances be considered acceptable if it takes a certain, limited period of time for processing times to reach normal, acceptable levels in connection with major reorganisations and restructurings. In the specific situation, however, where it was 27 months