SUMMARIES OF SELECTED STATEMENTS 2014-43. MONITORING VISIT TO CHILDREN’S MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE BISPEBJERG During a monitoring visit to a children’s mental health centre, the Ombudsman’s monitoring team noticed two staff members taking hold of a young boy in the institution’s courtyard. The staff members dragged the boy inside despite his resistance. Subsequently, the monitoring team was informed that the boy had not wanted to come inside for school lessons and that he had been restrained twice. The boy was a day patient at the centre, and since the coercion regulations in the Mental Health Act do not apply to day patients, there was no statutory authority to use coercion. In addition, there was no statutory authority regarding reasonable force or necessity. The Ombudsman considered it to be a matter of severe criticism that force had been used on the boy. V. OTHER AUTHORITIES ETC. WITHIN THE OMBUDSMAN’S JURISDICTION 2014-30. A COMPLAINT ABOUT THE METRO COMPANY ‘METROSELSKABET I/S’ FELL OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE OMBUDSMAN’S CORE COMPETENCE On behalf of a client – a subcontractor of the metro building work – a lawyer requested that the Ombudsman initiate an investigation of the decision taken by ‘Metroselskabet I/S’ to ask the principal contractor to terminate the co-operation with the subcontractor in question. The lawyer claimed in this connection, among other things, that ‘Metroselskabet I/S’ had not complied with the rules of the Public Administration Act in regard to consultation of the parties involved and giving reasoned statements. 151