The Individuals’ Board in Pajala municipality is strongly criticised for, among other things, the slow processing and inadequate documentation of a case concerning personal assistance under the Functional Impairments Act

Summary of the decision: In June 2023, an individual applied for personal assistance under the Act concerning Support and Service for Persons with Certain Functional Impairments (LSS, 1993:387). A decision in the case was only issued 14 months later.

In his decision, the Parliamentary Ombudsman states that the processing time in the case was too long and considerably exceeded the guidelines for cases concerning personal assistance under the LSS, as the Parliamentary Ombudsman has previously stated. Even if circumstances such as the complexity of a case can lead to it taking longer to process, the Parliamentary Ombudsman underscores that the board always has a responsibility to make progress in the case and to take a decision within a reasonable amount of time. This requirement applies even if the individual, for example, is granted other assistance during the processing period. The Parliamentary Ombudsman is critical of the board’s slow processing and of the fact the individual had to wait far too long for the decision.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman is also critical of the fact the case was not documented in the manner required by the legislation. The inadequate documentation meant, among other things, that it was not possible to follow the processing of the case afterwards and to see what action the board had taken. The shortcomings also made the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s review of the case significantly more difficult and meant that it was not possible to assess when the board should have given notification of substantial delay in accordance with section 11 of the Administrative Procedure Act (2017:900). On the basis of what has emerged in respect of the slow processing of the case, however, the Parliamentary Ombudsman can conclude that the limit for when the board must assess whether the case is going to be substantially delayed had passed. It was not possible to deduce from the documentation whether the board sent a notification of substantial delay at any point. The Parliamentary Ombudsman is also critical of the board’s handling of the case in this respect.

All in all, the Parliamentary Ombudsman considers that the board deserves serious criticism for its slow processing and for how it handled the case.

Finally, the Parliamentary Ombudsman found there were grounds to comment on the authority’s obligation under Chapter 13, section 6, of the Instrument of Government to assist the Parliamentary Ombudsman in an investigation.