appendix d: summaries of selected cases The Ombudsman could not criticise that the tribunal had considered the local authority’s decision to have reached the complainant the day after it had been sent. He pointed out the, in general practice, lenient standard of proof of the assumption that a letter from a public authority has reached its recipient the day after it has been sent. However, it is possible for the social tribunal to grant an exemption from the appeal deadline. The Ombudsman enumerated a number of circumstances which in his opinion may be included when assessing whether or not an authority should grant an exemption. He recommended that the tribunal reopen the case. (Case No. 2008-3306-009) 3. Interpretation of two provisions on free treatment for children and juveniles in Social Services Act A mother complained to the Ombudsman about a case concerning free treatment pursuant to two provisions in the Social Services Act. The treatment was for a 12-year-old girl with sensory-motor difficulties. The local authority, the social tribunal and the National Social Appeals Board had all refused. With regard to the first provision, the authorities had referred to the provision being solely meant for isolated or quite temporary and short-term treatment, not for longer-term therapy. The Ombudsman stated that the wording of the provision and the guidance notes from the Ministry of Social Affairs spoke most in favour of the view that the provision also included longer-term therapeutic processes. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was nothing in the explanatory notes on the provision which spoke against this interpretation. With regard to the second provision, the authorities had based their refusal on the interpretation that the provision covered solely maintenance training, meaning training focused on preventing loss of function and maintaining an existing level of function. The Ombudsman stated that according to the explanatory notes on the provision, this interpretation could not be applied, regardless of any superficial reading of the provision’s wording, which spoke of ‘maintaining’ physical or mental skills. Thus, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, ‘maintenance training’ must be understood as defined in the explanatory notes, meaning that it also included training intended to ‘improve the existing level of function’. 89