The city of Malmö reports the assistance company Särnmark to the Inspectorate for Care and Care, Ivo.
It is one of several reports against the company recently.
“Särnmark again puts its own interest before the user’s needs and does not seem to care about the user’s well-being,” the report states.
Särnmark has more than a thousand assistants around the country. Now Ivo-notifies the city of Malmö of the company. The municipality believes that the company’s suitability to conduct business can be questioned, documents seen by the Siren news agency show.
In the report, the city of Malmö gives examples of two cases where it is considered that Särnmark has broken. One is about a user where Särnmark is said to have had a “reluctance to carry out point interventions that a user was in need of”.
Another case concerns a user who frequently uses the municipality’s security alarm to get help with going to the toilet, even though the person has personal assistance from Särnmark.
In the report, the municipality directs scathing criticism towards the assistance giant.
“Särnmark again puts its own interest before the user’s needs and does not seem to care about the user’s well-being or how the assistance is carried out,” the report states.
Försäkringskassan has also reported
In 2024, Försäkringskassan also reported Särnmark to Ivo – twice. One case concerns the company’s alleged withholding of information that a municipality had taken over responsibility for several interventions by a user.
The second case is about one of the company’s three lawyers having submitted opinions to the Social Insurance Agency in the name of a user, despite the fact that the lawyer lacked power of attorney and that the user was not behind the opinions. During the investigation, it also emerged that the company did not perform the assistance hours that the user was granted.
The answer: “Does not take part in the criticism”
Särnmark CEO Marika Philipson says that the company does not take notice of reports to Ivo and therefore finds it difficult to comment on the criticism that emerges about the specific cases.
– It could be that users sometimes think they have a need for assistance that is not supported in the user’s decision. It could result in a user using their security alarm too often, there is something human in that, she tells TV4 Nyheterna.
About the city of Malmö’s general criticism of the company, she says:
– It is very boring criticism. We are a very transparent company that has been on the market for a long time. But these are criticisms that we haven’t heard about.
But isn’t it serious that a municipality believes that you “once again put your own interest before the user’s needs”?
– Of course it is serious criticism and we may take part in it and in which specific cases it is concerned, it is clear that we will look into it. We work with continuous quality improvements.