Too long case processing time at the County Administrator in Nordland

The County Administrator, like other sector authorities in locality matters, has a duty to process received applications “without undue delay” cf. Section 11 of the Administration Act, and within the framework of the time limits laid down in Section 4 of the processing regulations. Section 4 of the processing regulations states that after an application has been consulted in the municipality - and the county authority has sent the comments from the consultation round to the sector authorities - the sector authorities must make a decision within 4 weeks thereafter. The normal situation should therefore be that the County Administrator’s decision should be available within 4 weeks after the comments from the consultation round in the municipality have been sent. Of course, it should not be the case that a County Administrator routinely gives up on the deadlines set in the current regulations.

But from time to time it may of course be the case that the capacity of the administration means that it is not possible to meet the case processing deadlines. The human resources are simply not enough. But if this is the case, then the management of the body has a duty to take the necessary remedial measures - so that normal case processing times become the norm again. What lies in the administration’s duty to deal with cases “without undue delay” has been the subject of several statements from the Parliamentary Ombudsman. In SOMB case 2016/2957, this was summarised as follows:

“In several cases, the Ombudsman has assumed that the provision sets requirements for both the processing time and what are acceptable reasons for delays in the processing, see latest SOM-2016-419. The condition “without undue stay” is discretionary, and the detailed content may vary according to, among other things, the area of the case and the type of case. The combination of a large workload and limited case processing capacity may be acceptable reasons why the processing of a case may drag on, see for example SOMB-2002-67.

It appears from the municipality’s explanations that the Department for Planning, Building and Geodata has for some time experienced problems related to a large workload and significant understaffing. It also appears that the municipality is aware of the problems, and that these have now been clearly addressed. Remedial measures have been implemented, but it is natural that it will take some time before the effect of these occurs. Against this background, the ombudsman has at this time found no reason to investigate or assess in more detail whether the processing of the case in the municipality has been in accordance with the Administration Act Section 11 a first paragraph and general principles for sound case processing, neither in case 2016/2957 about the missing completion certificate or on a more general basis.

The Ombudsman would nevertheless like to remind that administrative management has a responsibility to organise the case management so that it is in accordance with the Administration Act, see SOM-2016-419 and SOMB-2002-67. This includes, among other things, that the assessment of which tasks are to be prioritised must take place according to factual criteria, and that delays in cases must not be longer than strictly necessary. The processing of a case cannot be stopped indefinitely. The use of “silo arrangements”, for example where incoming cases are not immediately allocated to a case manager, must be justifiable, see for example SOMB-2004-41, with further reference to SOMB-2001-56”.

So, if over time it is the case that a County Administrator is unable to process the cases within the applicable deadlines - then it is relevant to ask whether the body has implemented relevant and sufficient remedial measures. County Administrator Karlsen must be required to give a clear answer to this.

The normal situation must of course be that the deadlines laid down in the current regulations are followed. The body is then obliged to implement the remedial administrative measures that are necessary for the body’s duties to be carried out in line with the current rules. If, despite persistent problems with meeting deadlines, a body fails to implement the necessary remedial measures - then the body will be in breach of the Administration Act’s provision that cases must be dealt with “without undue delay”. In principle, the body will be liable for damages for the losses a party suffers as a result of such breaches of the procedural rules. But as the discretionary margin will be wide - the courts will probably be careful in imposing liability unless the absence of putting remedial measures in place appears obviously negligent. The question is, however, whether they are starting to approach this limit in Nordland.

This post is part of an ongoing debate published on iLaks.no