An individual who contacts a centre for social work (CSD) for help due to material or social hardship has a right to expect that the CSD will respond to their requests and provide them with the necessary information, support, and assistance. The responsiveness of the CSD also creates trust, which is the basis of cooperation and communicates to the person seeking help that they are respected, heard, and understood.

* * *

A complainant who applied to the CSD for extraordinary cash social assistance turned to the Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia (Ombudsman). During the decision on the application, she turned to the CSD with three more letters, in which she described her plight and asked for a quick decision, but the CSD did not respond to her letters.

Although there were still a few days left until the deadline for issuing a decision when she informed the Ombudsman about it, the Ombudsman asked the CSD for clarifications in the case, especially regarding the alleged unresponsiveness. The CSD found that when dealing with the complainant's letters with a request for the application to be resolved as soon as possible, an error occurred on the part of the expert worker, who did not respond to her letters or did not invite her for an interview, in which he would explain to her both the procedure and the status of her application and familiarise himself with her situation in more detail. The expert worker apologised in writing to the complainant for his mistake. In the case under consideration, an administrative error was also committed because the head or director of the CSD was not informed of the complainant's letters. The direct manager or director of the CSD, who can check and monitor the work of the expert worker, should be familiar with such emergency calls or letters from users. Employees in administrative department were therefore once again reminded of the already established practice of notification when an error is found, so that situations like the one that happened with the complainant do not happen again.

The complainant's application was then decided on, but she was not offered the necessary information or support and help in a broader sense during the process itself. The Ombudsman assessed that the CSD did not respond appropriately to the plight of the complainant, and by not responding to her letters, they also acted in violation of the Decree on administrative operations, which violated the principle of good administration. The Ombudsman considered the complaint justified. 9.5-21/2023