Kela Reprimanded for 14-Month Delay in Handling Data Request Due to Missing USB Drive
The Social Insurance Institution of Finland (Kela) has been issued a reprimand by the Deputy Parliamentary Ombudsman for unlawfully delaying a client’s data request for over 14 months. The delay was caused by the absence of an encrypted USB flash drive at Kela’s Tampere office, violating the Public Information Act’s requirement to provide requested documents within two weeks—or, in exceptional cases, one month.
The client submitted the data request on 1 February 2025, specifying that the information be delivered on an encrypted USB drive. However, Kela’s Tampere office had only one such drive in use, which had been loaned to a previous requester and never returned despite reminders. A new flash drive was ordered in March 2025, but due to supplier delays and a change in vendors, it did not arrive until March 2026. The requested documents were finally delivered on 26 March 2026, nearly 14 months after the initial request (Ilta-Sanomat).
According to Kela, the supplier faced availability issues with encrypted USB drives, contributing to the prolonged delay. The agency stated that it investigated the flash drive delivery problem in autumn 2025 and again in early 2026, but the new drive only arrived after these efforts (Ilta-Sanomat).
Parliamentary Ombudsman Criticises Kela’s Handling of the Request
Deputy Parliamentary Ombudsman Mikko Sarja determined that Kela’s failure to comply with the Public Information Act was particularly reprehensible. The decision emphasised that the lack of an encrypted flash drive did not justify the excessive delay, as Kela could have explored alternative solutions, such as obtaining a drive from another office or proposing a different delivery method to the client (Yle).
The Ombudsman also noted that Kela did not issue a formal negative decision when it was unable to fulfil the request as specified, as required by law. Instead, the agency only acted after the Parliamentary Ombudsman intervened in March 2026, raising concerns about whether the request would have been addressed at all without external pressure (Ilta-Sanomat).
Ilta-Sanomat reports that the client repeatedly followed up on the request during the 14-month period, highlighting the prolonged frustration caused by the delay. The Ombudsman’s decision underscores that authorities must prioritise timely responses, even when logistical challenges arise.
