A complainant contacted the Ombudsman with an allegation that the MNVP was unresponsive to his letters regarding the post-earthquake rehabilitation of his residential building in the municipality of Kobarid. He informed us that seven years ago he had started the post-earthquake rehabilitation of a building in which five people live. During this time, together with the Bovec-Kobarid State Technical Office (hereinafter: Technical Office), he arranged the construction documentation for the replacement construction of a residential house, including the building permit and the implementation project (PZI). The Technical Office was closed on 1 April 2023, and a notice of closure was left on the door of the office with the listed contacts (telephone number and e-mail address of the MNVP), which individuals can contact for information about the post-earthquake reconstruction. Despite multiple phone calls and five letters sent, he did not receive a clear answer from the MNVP.[1] He contacted the Ombudsman because he had received information from the designer that the PZI or the building permit was about to expire.

In its first response to the Ombudsman's inquiry, the MNVP reported that representatives of the State Technical Office had been in telephone contact with the complainant several times, and in the conversations, they had asked him for patience due to the priority treatment of tasks related to the consequences of the floods in 2023. According to the MNVP's announcements, the rehabilitation of the complainant's facility was expected to be included in the priority plan this year. The Ombudsman welcomed the latter, although it was not clear from the MNVP's first response whether this fact had also been communicated to the complainant in writing, and therefore suggested that it do so.

The Ombudsman did not dispute that the MNVP was focused on this topic due to the implementation of flood damage rehabilitation, but nevertheless expected somewhat more specific explanations about which actions from the MNVP were necessary for the complainant to successfully complete the rehabilitation, especially given the reported sensitive time circumstances. From this perspective, a more specific written definition from the MNVP and a possible proposal for a temporary solution, until the complainant's case comes up for further consideration, appeared to be entirely recommendable.^[2] From this perspective, a more specific written definition from the MNVP and a possible proposal for a temporary solution, until the complainant's case comes up for further consideration, appeared to be entirely recommendable.

After two urgent requests, the Ombudsman finally received the MNVP's response to the complainant. It was understood from it that the MNVP was preparing a temporary decision regarding the renovation of the complainant's building, which should resolve key issues and at the same time enable further consideration. At the same time, the MNVP also addressed the complainant's concerns regarding the expiration of the building permit and explained the circumstances of its own previous failure to respond.

The MNVP thus followed the Ombudsman's proposal. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman considered the complaint to be well-founded, as the response to the complainant only came after the Ombudsman's intervention. The Ombudsman expects that the further process of resolving the complainant's problems will proceed without unnecessary complications. 17.0-11/2024

----------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Residents of the neighbouring apartment building are also said to be facing the same problems.

[2] Presumed expiration of the PZI and thus the building permit.