Axel Agnred, who has autism and an intellectual disability, has lived in an LSS residence with round-the-clock staff support in Gothenburg for nine years. The municipality wants to move Axel Agnred to a more independent residence, a plan his family describes as a catastrophe. Marie Brynolfsson, the responsible municipal councilor for disability rights in Gothenburg, says the case is not unique.
She notes there has been a trend over time where people lose or have reduced LSS support in various areas. Significantly more people are being denied residence with special service in Gothenburg municipality now. In 2021, 12% of applications for residence with special service were denied in Gothenburg; five years later, the figure was 35%.
According to Marie Brynolfsson, the increase in denials is because officials making decisions have started following court rulings in previous cases as legal precedent. Social Services Minister Camilla Waltersson Grönvall shares concern about people like Axel receiving changed decisions after many years. The government has tasked the National Board of Health and Welfare with supporting municipalities in their assessments, and does not rule out changes to the LSS law.
It is like a stab in the back from the municipality's side.
Other cases illustrate similar challenges across Sweden. Jenny Ledelius's son lost his LSS support the day after a meeting with the municipality. Her son was called to a meeting by social services on a Saturday evening without being informed what it was about, but Jenny Ledelius has won her case in the administrative court.
In Pajala municipality, the social committee has taken too long to arrange a residence intervention for a child who was granted it under the LSS law. When the Parliamentary Ombudsman asked the committee to explain, nearly eight more months had passed and the intervention for the child had not been made. The committee thought it had arranged another solution by having the child live with a relative.
The governing politicians in Gothenburg have clarified to the administration that legal precedent should be a minimum for what should be done for an individual, not a ceiling.