The Ombudsman received a complaint from a resident of a retirement home, who informed him that she had not received pocket money for several months. The Ombudsman considered the complaint and found that the retirement home had unjustifiably interfered with the complainant's pocket money by increasing the price of home care each time. The Ombudsman assessed the complaint as well-founded and called on the retirement home to change its behaviour and to pay the unpaid pocket money to the complainant. The retirement home followed the Ombudsman's proposal, which we welcome.

* * *

The Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia (hereinafter: Ombudsman) was contacted by the complainant, a resident of a retirement home (hereinafter: DSO), who stated that she had been deprived of pocket money for three months. In this regard, the complainant contacted the management of the DSO, but did not receive a satisfactory answer. She asked the Ombudsman to put her in touch with the Centre for Social Work or to check whether the DSO was paying her pocket money correctly, as she could not even buy basic hygiene items.

The Ombudsman addressed several inquiries to the Centre for Social Work and the DSO. From the DSO's statements and the decisions on exemption from payment of institutional care provided by the Centre for Social Work, the Ombudsman understood (this was later confirmed by the DSO in its reply to the Ombudsman) that the DSO, whenever the price of the service is increased, when there is a difference in the price of the service, this is charged to the complainant first. If the complainant is unable to settle the entire difference because she does not have enough funds for this, the balance is be covered by the taxpayer with an additional payment. The payment of the complainant's pocket money was therefore linked to an increase in the price of home care. The DSO interpreted the statements from the decisions of the Centre for Social Work on the exemption from payment of institutional care in such a way that, until the receipt of the new decision on the exemption from payment, it charged the taxpayer an additional payment for home care based on the old decision, and the complainant had to cover the difference between the old and new price of the service. The DSO covered this difference with the complainant's pocket money.

The wording of the decision of the Social Work Centre, with which it decided on the exemption from payment, states how the exemption is adjusted and to whom the contribution is increased by the difference that arises when the price of the service is adjusted. Thus, point 9 of the pronouncement of the decision states: "The exemption from points 5 and 7 of the pronouncement of this decision is adjusted at each adjustment of the price of the service in such a way that it is increased by the amount of the adjustment and the taxpayer's contribution from points 5 and 7 is increased by the difference mentioned in the pronouncement of this decision in relation to the contributions from the mentioned points."

The Ombudsman found that the DSO had no legal basis to interfere with the complainant's pocket money when raising the price of the service, which should amount to EUR 139.60 at the time the complaint was considered, which is also the individual's social security limit. Other DSO statements, e.g. the fact that the complainant already receives EUR 50 in pocket money from her relatives, is also no basis for the DSO to arbitrarily decide on the complainant's pocket money. Indeed, the Ombudsman believes that it is not the task of the DSO to judge the reasonableness of spending the Ombudsman's pocket money, but rather to act in accordance with the decision of the CSD and allocate the resources that belong to the complainant in accordance with the legal basis. The Ombudsman assessed the complaint as well-founded, and informed the DSO of his opinion:

"The DSO had no legal basis to interfere with the complainant's pocket money, which should amount to EUR 139.60, which is also the social security limit of the individual, every time the price of the service is raised. The Ombudsman suggests that the DSO change its behaviour in the future and harmonise it with the decision of the Centre for Social Work. The Ombudsman expects that the DSO will immediately (if it has not already done so) reimburse the complainant pocket money for all the months so far, when it was unjustifiably taken from her, and that in the future it will pay her pocket money in accordance with the decision."

The DSO informed the Ombudsman that it had followed his suggestions. It will agree with the complainant on the return of the funds to which she is entitled, and in the future pay her pocket money in the amount specified in the decision of the Centre for Social Work. The Ombudsman welcomes the DSO's response.9.7-15/2023