In May 2023, Ulla-Lena Lindqvist arrived at her summer cottage in Vidja, Huddinge municipality, to find mail not only for herself but also for three other individuals. Initially assuming a postal error, she soon discovered that these individuals were officially registered as residents of her small 40-square-meter cottage. This marked the beginning of an ordeal, as the number of registered ”residents” at her summer cottage ballooned to a staggering 90 at its peak, a situation first reported by the local news outlet, Mitti.
Disturbed by this discovery, Lindqvist promptly reported the incident to the Swedish Tax Agency (Skatteverket) and filed a police report. Despite her efforts, a year and a half later, 25 individuals remain registered at her summer residence. A revolving door of registrations and deregistrations has ensued, leaving Lindqvist frustrated and feeling powerless. Adding to the complexity is the fact that Lindqvist is primarily resident elsewhere in Huddinge and not registered at the summer cottage. This has hampered her ability to leverage legal protections designed to prevent unauthorized address usage, as these protections typically apply only to the registered resident of a property. The situation has also impacted some of Lindqvist’s neighbors, highlighting a broader issue within the system.
Lindqvist’s attempts to rectify the situation have been met with bureaucratic hurdles and a lack of responsiveness from the authorities. She has felt abandoned in her fight against the individuals she jokingly refers to as her ”tenants.” The initial interaction with the Tax Agency proved particularly frustrating. After finally making contact, they provided her with a list of 88 names and requested she identify those who were not actually residing at her property. A designated contact person assigned to her case eventually ceased communication, directing her to a website designed for individuals registered at the address in question, which provided no assistance to Lindqvist given her unregistered status. This lack of support left her feeling disheartened and unheard.
Within the Tax Agency, Tobias Wijk, a business expert, acknowledges shortcomings in their handling of the situation. He admits the agency should have identified and addressed the issue sooner. The Tax Agency is currently developing a system to better analyze this type of data and prevent similar occurrences. However, Wijk points out the difficulties in addressing cases involving contact addresses, where registration is not required. This is particularly relevant to Lindqvist’s situation, as individuals can legally designate a contact address for mail handling without residing at the location, often used by those obtaining a coordination number, a temporary identification number for individuals not registered in Sweden. This loophole creates a challenge for authorities in verifying legitimate address usage.
Lindqvist suspects organized activity behind the address exploitation, although the precise motive remains unclear. The regular emptying of her mailbox suggests a system for retrieving mail by one or more individuals. She considered personally observing the mailbox to identify those involved, but hesitated due to safety concerns. Following the Tax Agency’s provision of the names registered at her cottage, Lindqvist hoped for collaborative action with the police, given her previously filed report. However, she later discovered that the police had dismissed her case after just four days without notifying her. Despite having the option to appeal, Lindqvist, weary of the ordeal, decided against it.
Lindqvist strongly believes the responsibility for monitoring, registering, and reporting individuals misusing her address should not fall on her. She advocates for a system to oversee properties, even those where the owner isn’t registered. Jan Olsson, a criminal commissioner at the National IT Crime Centre, agrees with Lindqvist’s assessment. While unsurprised by the swift dismissal of the police report, he emphasizes that the primary concern is removing the unauthorized individuals, a task that falls within the jurisdiction of the Tax Agency. He believes the Tax Agency should champion changes to address this systemic issue. Olsson further suggests the organized nature of the address usage hints at potential underlying criminal activity, such as fraud or benefit scams, warranting police attention. The strategic choice of a summer cottage, though seemingly random, could indicate a calculated exploitation of a perceived vulnerability.
Tobias Wijk of the Tax Agency attributes the rise in such incidents to the relatively recent requirement for individuals applying for coordination numbers to provide a contact address. While unaware of a significant overall increase, he acknowledges the occurrence of clusters of cases, corroborating Lindqvist’s experience with her neighbors facing similar issues. Resigned to the situation, Lindqvist has removed her mailbox, hoping to discourage further misuse of her summer cottage as a contact address. Regrettably, this also means forgoing mail delivery during the summer months. Ultimately, she refuses to let those responsible for this ordeal dictate how she uses her ”paradise,” determined to retain her property and not allow them to ”win.”
