1. The complaint is rejected on formal grounds
About one in five complaints are rejected because the Ombudsman cannot enter the case.
Common grounds for formal rejection:
- The citizen must complain to other complaint bodies first. The Ombudsman can only consider a complaint if other complaint options have been used.
For example, an industrial injury case must be processed by Labour Market Insurance and then by the National Social Appeals Board before the Ombudsman can process the case.
- The complaint is directed at a business, an institution or a subject about which the Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints – such as a private business, the courts of law or a legislative bill.
- The complaint is submitted too late. The Ombudsman must receive the complaint within one year after the citizen has received the authority’s decision. The deadline for complaining to the Ombudsman is calculated from the highest administrative authority’s decision.
If the Ombudsman cannot investigate the complaint (does not have jurisdiction), the citizen will receive a reply explaining why the complaint is rejected.
Even though the Ombudsman does not investigate the complaint further, the citizen can expect that the involved authority or authorities will be informed of the Ombudsman’s reply to the complaint.
2. The Ombudsman decides not to enter the case
After having read a complaint, the Ombudsman can decide not to process the case further. This is set out in Section 16(1) of the Ombudsman Act.
Instead, the citizen receives a brief letter explaining why the case is closed. Normally, the authority will receive a copy of the letter.
Common reasons why the Ombudsman decides not to process a case further:
- The complaint concerns minor issues.
- The case falls outside the Ombudsman’s core task, for instance cases relating to contractual law.
- It is unclear what the complaint is about. In those cases, the complainant is guided about their options or asked to write more precisely what the complaint is about.
- There is particularly easy access to bringing the case before the courts, for instance certain cases that are processed under the Sentence Enforcement Act.
3. The Ombudsman helps ‘in another way’
In many cases, the Ombudsman tries to help the citizen without starting a detailed investigation of the case. This is the outcome in about two out of five complaint cases.
If the complaint contains aspects that the authority has not yet considered, the Ombudsman may
- ask the complainant to write to the authority/a higher authority
- forward the complaint to the relevant authority – for instance if the authority first ought to go more thoroughly into the grounds for its decision, or if the higher authority has not yet considered the complaint.
The Ombudsman sometimes forwards complaints about authorities’ case processing times to the authority as a reminder from the complainant.
If the Ombudsman asks the complainant to write to the authority first or if he forwards the complaint to the authority, the Ombudsman closes his case at the same time. In some cases however, the Ombudsman asks the authority to notify him of its reply to the complainant.
If the complainant still wants to complain about the authority’s (original) decision or case processing after the authority’s new reply, a new complaint must be sent to the Ombudsman.
4. The case is assessed after limited investigation
In some cases, the Ombudsman assesses, after having read the complaint and possibly obtained further details from the complainant or authority, that an Ombudsman investigation would not be able to help the complainant achieve a better outcome in the case or a better legal position. Such a limited investigation is the result of about one in ten complaint cases, for instance when
- there are evidentiary issues in the case that the Ombudsman cannot clarify (the Ombudsman only processes cases on a written basis). For instance if the citizen and the authority disagree about facts that cannot be assessed on the existing written basis.
- The Ombudsman does not have the expert knowledge needed to assess the case, such as medical expert knowledge.
- The authority has made an assessment that the Ombudsman does not fully review because the authorities have more experience in the field.
- The authority has already corrected the matter being complained about.
- There are some minor problems with the case processing, but the authority’s result is correct.
Even if the authority has made some formal errors or has not fully complied with the rules, the Ombudsman assesses in these cases that further investigation of the errors would not help the complainant achieve a better outcome.
The case is closed with a brief letter, which is sent in copy to the authority.
The Ombudsman’s processing of the case will typically take place according to Section 16(1) and (2) of the Ombudsman Act.
5. The Ombudsman carries out a detailed investigation
About one in 20 complaints leads to a detailed Ombudsman investigation. In these cases, the Ombudsman usually sends a hearing with specific questions to the authority and asks for the documents in the case. Usually, the complainant has the opportunity to comment on the authority’s reply.
There may be several so-called hearing rounds before the Ombudsman writes his final statement.
The Ombudsman determines if all aspects of the complaint are to be investigated.
No interviews or searches
The Ombudsman investigates cases on a written basis and therefore builds his statements on the documents in the case, the authority’s statements and the citizen’s comments.
The Ombudsman does not carry out interviews like the courts or searches like the police.
The authorities must give the Ombudsman the information and documents that the Ombudsman asks for, and the authorities must tell the truth. The authorities must also give a statement if the Ombudsman asks for it. This is set out in Section 19 of the Ombudsman Act.
Criticism and recommendation
If the authority has made errors, the Ombudsman can criticise and possibly recommend that the authority reopen the case and make a new decision.
The Ombudsman cannot demand that the authorities follow a recommendation – however, in practice they always do.