A misinterpretation by Nav has led to parents living abroad missing out on child benefit, cash support and benefit for a single mother or father.
Ever since 1994, people living in other EEA countries have been denied benefits. Nav now admits that this practice has been wrong.
One of those affected by the change in practice is Anne Elisabeth Skadberg. She lives in Lisbon and is the sole parent of a six-year-old boy.
When she moved to Portugal from Stavanger two years ago because of work, she thought the support would be transferred since the father of the child is Norwegian.
– I have complained many times and have not been successful, she says to TV 2.
– Means a lot
Skadberg says she has referred to the EEA regulations in her complaints to Nav, which has not helped. She is happy that the practice is now changing.
– I have fought for such a long time and sent many inquiries to Nav. So I’m glad they’re going to interpret it differently.
AFFECTED: Anne Elisabeth Skadberg is affected by the misinterpretation of Nav. She says the change in practice means a lot to her and her son. Photo: Private
She previously received transitional allowance, child benefit and child support. She says it has not been easy financially in the last two years.
– For me and my child, this means a lot. We won’t stress about money anymore, says Skadberg.
Rune Halseth is head of Nav-Optryddingen. It is an organization that helps people who are unfairly treated by Nav.
He tells TV 2 that new cases are pouring in from people affected by the Nav error.
– We have lawyers who sit at the reception desk and receive them.
NAV: Rune Halseth is head of the organization Nav-Optryddingen. He himself is a victim of the Nav scandal that broke in 2019. Photo: Nico Sollie / TV 2
Lack of knowledge
The case has clear parallels to the Nav scandal, which broke in 2019.
It was then revealed that Nav had for a number of years misinterpreted and misapplied the EU’s social security regulation.
On flimsy grounds, Nav refused Norwegians to take social security benefits to other member states of the EEA.
Halseth is himself one of the scandal’s victims. He served four months for something that is not illegal.
– I think this is a scandal within a scandal again. These are things we have made them aware of for many years.
– It was said a few years ago that the error did not apply to more benefits, but now there are even more.
He believes Nav’s misinterpretation can testify to a lack of knowledge and legal interpretations in a state apparatus.
– We think it is good that Nav admits its mistakes. We have been here for almost two years and cleaned up a mess. We still do. Which shows how important we are in this picture.
Harassment in a Facebook group: – Light years away from humour
Confused about the handling
Nav stated earlier this week that they do not have an overview of who may be affected by the previous practice.
They are therefore asking people who may be affected to get in touch. Halseth believes that is not correct.
– They leave responsibility to those who suffer damage and do not cause damage. This will be completely wrong.
In addition, he is surprised that Nav does not know who is affected. As there are people who have received refund claims and have been reported.
– Nav goes out and says it will be difficult to find them. Then it is remarkable that we as an organization find them. It is not difficult, says Halseth.
CRIMINAL CASES: Performance director Eve V. Bergli says Nav has a close dialogue with the Setteriadvakoten about any criminal cases that may be affected by the change in practice. Photo: NAV
Dialogue on criminal cases
Nav has been submitted to the criticism from Halseth. Benefits director Eve V. Bergli says these benefits have been considered to be in line with current EEA law until now.
– EEA law is, however, dynamic, and how EEA law is to be interpreted is largely clarified through court decisions and advisory opinions from the EU and EFTA Court.
When it comes to the family benefits, Bergli says it is not possible to identify those concerned in Nav’s systems. Therefore, those who believe they are affected must get in touch, so that the matter can be reassessed.
– We are looking at the cases that NAV has notified that concern stays abroad at the same time as they have received the benefits in question, to clarify whether any of these may be affected by the change in practice, says Bergli, and adds:
– We are in close dialogue with the Setteriksadvokat regarding any criminal cases that may be affected.
