On Thursday, 19 June 2025, the Parliament (Saeima) voted to dismiss Juris Jansons from the office of the Ombudsman of the Republic of Latvia.

Juris Jansons has been performing the duties of the Ombudsman since 17 March 2011. On 14 June 2025, Juris Jansons submitted a notification to the Presidium of the Saeima (Parliament) on his resignation from the office of the Ombudsman at his own request. On 18 June 2025, the Human Rights and Public Affairs Parliamentary Committee considered and supported the draft decision on the dismissal of Juris Jansons from the office of the Ombudsman.

The achievements of the Ombudsman’s Office during the term of office of Juris Jansons can be found in the Ombudsman’s annual reports, which, according to the law, must be submitted at least once a year to the President and the Parliament of the Republic of Latvia.

The Ombudsman’s Office will continue to perform all functions and tasks specified in the Ombudsman Law under the leadership of Deputy Ombudsman Ineta Piļāne until the Parliament approves a new Ombudsman. This procedure is determined by Section 16 part 3 of the Ombudsman Law.

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman is issuing practical guidance to housing officers to ensure Disabled people’s homes meet their needs.

Following on from the Ombudsman’s focus report on Disabled people and housing, the new Good Practice Guide is designed to help officers in local councils improve their practice when dealing with people who need housing adaptations, often through what are called ‘Disabled Facilities Grants’ (DFGs).

Alterations can include simple changes like handrails or ramps to extensive adaptations like internal lifts or extensions to create wheelchair-accessible bathrooms or extra living space.

The guide includes several case studies drawn Ombudsman investigations to illustrate the difficulties people have faced, and the solutions and remedies recommended by the Ombudsman to put the problems right.

Drawing on the Ombudsman’s extensive experience, the Guide also offers key learning points for officers, including:

• ensuring robust procedures set out expectations for all services involved in delivering DFGs, including timescales, to avoid delay
• communicating clearly and effectively with applicants
• keeping accurate and detailed records, particularly of the agreed works and amount of the grant awarded
• ensuring the completed works meet the assessed needs
• having regard to the additional guidance on DFGs for children

Ms Amerdeep Somal, Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman said:

“Disabled Facilities Grants can play an essential role in helping people remain in their homes for as long as possible with the best possible quality of life.

“They are often complex, not just because of extensive building work, but also the numerous organisations involved. So it’s essential that councils do all they can to avoid delay, and ensure any work is carried out to adequately meet people’s needs. When it does not, we know this can be extremely stressful for the people involved.

“We are issuing this guide – directly aimed at those officers who work with Disabled people in their homes – to help ensure local councils get things right.”

À l’occasion de la journée mondiale des lanceurs d’alerte, le Défenseur des droits rappelle les conditions pour être reconnu comme lanceur d’alerte et réitère ses recommandations pour une meilleure protection des lanceurs d’alerte.

Tout le monde peut être lanceur d’alerte

Agent de crèche, infirmière, directeur des achats, directeur juridique, professeur, tous les professionnels peuvent être confrontés au besoin de signaler une situation répréhensible ou des faits qui portent atteinte à l’intérêt général. Il en va de même des citoyens qui, en dehors de leur activité professionnelle, seraient confrontés à une telle situation.

Les lanceurs d’alerte peuvent aussi signaler des situations qu’ils observent ou en dehors de tout contexte professionnel (en tant que citoyen, usager d’un service public ou client d’une entreprise privée par exemple).

Tout le monde peut ainsi être amené à lancer une alerte. 

Le lanceur d’alerte doit prouver les faits qu’il signale ?

Non. Pour être considéré comme lanceur d’alerte, il suffit d’avoir des motifs raisonnables de croire que les faits signalés sont fondés.

La certification des lanceurs d’alerte

Le Défenseur des droits peut certifier à une personne qu’elle est lanceuse d’alerte.

La certification est un document écrit qui atteste que la personne réunit les conditions pour être lanceur d’alerte. 

Elle doit être : 

• une personne physique (un individu),
• agissant de bonne foi,
• ne pas avoir bénéficié de contrepartie financière directe pour son alerte
• signaler des faits tels que des crimes, délits, violations de la loi ou atteintes à l’intérêt général. 

L’auteur du signalement doit avoir dénoncé les faits en interne ou auprès d’une autorité externe :

• Le signalement interne consiste à s’adresser à une personne à l’intérieur de la structure professionnelle concernée.
• Le signalement externe consiste à porter son alerte à la connaissance des pouvoirs publics en s’adressant à une institution désignée par les textes, dite « autorité externe » (Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés, Agence française anticorruption par exemple). 

Le lanceur d’alerte a le choix de procéder à une alerte externe ou interne. 

Cette certification conforte le lanceur dans ses démarches et peut l’aider à bénéficier des protections légales contre les représailles.

Lorsque le Défenseur des droits certifie un lanceur d’alerte, il rend un avis positif sur la qualité de lanceur d’alerte mais cela ne signifie pas que ce qui est dénoncé est vrai.

Les recommandations du Défenseur des droits pour une meilleure protection des lanceurs d’alerte

L’amélioration des droits des lanceurs d’alerte est aujourd’hui un objectif partagé au niveau européen et international. 

Les lanceurs d’alerte sont aujourd’hui mieux protégés :

• La définition des lanceurs d’alerte a été élargie et simplifiée
• Les lanceurs d’alerte peuvent désormais choisir entre de signaler les faits en interne ou en externe
• Les mesures protectrices des lanceurs d’alerte ont été renforcées
  • Interdiction formelle des représailles
  • Irresponsabilité civile et pénale étendues
  • Sanction des procédures bâillons, qui entravent les démarches du lanceur d’alerte
  • Soutien financier devant le juge

Le Défenseur des droits publie tous les deux ans, un rapport sur l’état de la protection des lanceurs d’alerte en France qu’il remet au Président de la République, au Président de l’Assemblée Nationale et au Président du Sénat.

Dans son dernier rapport, le Défenseur des droits a formulé onze recommandations pour l’amélioration des droits des lanceurs d’alerte. Il recommande notamment de :

• Mieux faire connaître les règles de protection des lanceurs d’alerte
• Protéger les personnes morales (associations notamment) en qualité de lanceurs d’alerte
• Protéger les lanceurs d’alerte dans le domaine de la défense nationale
• Rendre effectif le soutien financier et psychologique des lanceurs d’alerte
• Evaluer les dispositifs de recueil d’alerte dans les entreprises et administrations
• Au besoin, sanctionner les employeurs récalcitrants dans la mise en œuvre des dispositifs de recueil d’alertes
• Faire connaître l’existence des autorités en charge du traitement des alertes externes

This month we published decision reports from 20 complaints investigated by the Ombudsman. Thirteen of these were about health services, six about local government and one about a water provider. The outcome of these 20 complaints were

• Fully upheld: 12
• Some upheld: 5
• Not upheld: 1
• Resolved: 2

We made 61 recommendations to public bodies.

Resolving a complaint 

This month, we closed two cases as resolved. These are examples of cases where positive outcomes can be achieved for the complainant without the need for a long or detailed investigation.

We actively seek opportunities to resolve complaints at all stages of our process.

Resolution improves customer experience by providing redress more quickly and helps to rebuild relationships with public bodies.

In one case, a complainant told us they wanted a backdated kinship care allowance as they were the kinship carer for their grandchild. There had been some confusion over which authority was responsible for managing this, as the grandchild had moved from a different area.

When we opened our investigation, we contacted the local authority and listed the outcomes the complainant was seeking. They agreed to award a backdated payment of over £17,000, apologise to the complainant and update their kinship care policy and procedure as a result of learning from this case. 

This is a significant outcome for the complainant, and we welcome the local authority’s commitment to resolution and willingness to engage in reflective learning.

Our published decision reports can be found on our website.

Resources

• Redress Policy 

  While we do not award compensation, we can recommend redress where a financial loss has occurred. However, such circumstances are often limited. 

• Good practice guidance: alternative complaint resolution approaches

  Check out our guidance for examples of when an investigation may not always be the best option.

During June we:

• responded to 50 enquiries
• made 40 decisions
  • 13 community care grants
  • 27 crisis grants
• upheld 7 (54%) of community care grants and 5 (19%) of crisis grants
• we signposted an additional 83 applications to other sources of assistance
  • 55% (46) were calling us instead of their local council in error
  • 17% (14) noted that they had accessibility issues relating to contacting the council as there was no freephone number
  • 20% (17) were from local council liaison contacts seeking advice on the guidance
  • the remaining contacted us prematurely. We signposted them back to their local councils

Training August 2025

We are currently organising three in-person training sessions, scheduled to take place in Aberdeen, Edinburgh, and Glasgow in August 2025. These sessions will focus on enhancing clarity and consistency in communication, as well as effective recording of decisions.

The training, which is designed to be interactive, will include case studies, practical exercises and group discussions. It is aimed at SWF managers and colleagues who are involved in training or coaching. Attendees will be able to use our training materials to then deliver this to their own teams.

We will share full details, including confirmed dates and session content, within the coming weeks. 

Case summaries

We changed several decisions this month due to councils incorrectly assessing the information available during the application and first tier process. 

Case study: Evidence gathering

C applied for a crisis grant after having to pay £300.00 in excess costs for repairs to two mobility vehicles. As a result, they were without money for living costs for them and their disabled partner. 

The council declined the application on the basis that C had already received five awards in the last 12-month period which is more the usual maximum allowed. They did not identify any exceptional circumstances that would allow for an additional award to be made as they assessed that C had applied previously due to car repairs being the reason for the crisis. 

We reviewed the council's file and spoke with C. We reviewed the previous applications and found that, although they mentioned car trouble, the cause of the crisis was spending money on travel costs rather than car repairs. As such, the current application was materially different from previous applications. We considered the application passed all relevant stages of the decision making process. We therefore changed the council's decision and made an exceptional award. 

Recommendations

• We instructed the council to make an award of £277.74 to cover food and utilities until C’s next Universal Credit payment date, based on the recommended daily rate in the guidance.

Feedback for the Council

• Paying for travel costs and having to pay excess insurance costs are materially different reasons for a crisis.
• The decision letters should not refer to fault as this has been removed from the guidance.
• Decision making records should be robust and reflect the reasons for the council's decision.  

We asked the organisation to provide us with confirmation that the award was made within one week.

You can find more examples in the searchable case directory on our website.