A home, a family and decades of memories have not been enough to protect hundreds of Britons in Sweden from being forced to leave. Sweden has confirmed that 458 British citizens have been deported or forcibly removed since Brexit, revealing the scale of a residency crisis that has been quietly building since the UK left the EU. 

The figure has drawn attention because these are not simply people arriving in Sweden after Brexit and being refused permission to settle. The cases concern British citizens who failed to secure the post-Brexit residency status required to remain in the country, including people who had established their lives there before Brexit.

Thousands applied, thousands were rejected

By the end of 2024, 14,233 applications for post-Brexit residency had been submitted in Sweden, according to the Swedish Migration Agency. Almost 4,000 were rejected. Of course a refusal does not automatically mean deportation, but Swedish authorities say the 458 figure refers to cases where rejection of an application for residence status was accompanied by a deportation decision. 

However, the refusal rate has raised eyebrows, analysis by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office found Sweden’s refusal rate was 27.5 per cent, around three times higher than in any other EU member state and far above the EU average of roughly 3 to 4 per cent.  Separate Eurostat figures show that between 2021 and 2025, 2,490 UK nationals were ordered to leave Sweden. That represented almost a third of all UK nationals ordered to leave an EU country during the period, although the data does not establish exactly how many had been living in Sweden before Brexit. 

The numbers may not tell the whole story

Campaigners representing British residents in Sweden say the newly released 458 figure needs to be treated carefully. The number does not necessarily include people who left Sweden voluntarily after discovering they were unlikely to secure residency, nor does it necessarily capture Britons who obtained another form of temporary residence after their original application failed. That means the number of people whose lives have been disrupted by the residency rules could be considerably broader than the deportation figure alone suggests.

David Milstead, who heads the 9,000-member Brits in Sweden campaign group, has called for fuller and more transparent information about the circumstances behind the removals.  The concern is particularly significant for Britons who believed their established lives in Sweden were protected by the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement.

Why are people losing the right to stay?

British citizens who were legally resident in Sweden before the end of the Brexit transition period were covered by the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement. But Sweden operates an application-based system, meaning eligible British citizens had to apply for the relevant residence status. Late applications can still be accepted where there are “reasonable grounds” for missing the deadline. The dispute has centred on how strictly Sweden has interpreted that provision. The UK government has repeatedly raised concerns about the approach, with officials saying that, in practice, late applicants in Sweden are unlikely to have their reasons accepted as reasonable. 

Swedish authorities reject the suggestion that they have failed to implement the Withdrawal Agreement correctly. The Swedish Migration Agency maintains that the rules have been applied properly and that applicants have had access to appeals. Migration minister Johan Forssell has also defended the system, while leaving the door open to possible changes to make the process easier in future. 

Pressure is now coming from Brussels and Sweden

The issue is no longer confined to campaign groups and affected British residents. The European Commission is pressing Sweden for answers over its treatment of vulnerable British citizens, according to government correspondence obtained by The Local. The pressure follows reports of removal orders involving elderly and seriously ill residents.  The UK’s Foreign Office has also continued raising the matter with Swedish authorities through the mechanisms established to oversee citizens’ rights under the Withdrawal Agreement.

Meanwhile, Sweden’s opposition Centre Party has promised to reopen the application process for affected British citizens if it enters government. Its migration spokesperson has argued that people who had already built established lives in Sweden should not lose their right to remain because of administrative problems.  For Britons still caught in the system, the issue is therefore far from settled. Sweden has now put a number on those already removed, but campaigners are demanding to know how many more people have been forced to leave, remain on insecure temporary permits or are still fighting to keep the lives they established in Sweden before Brexit.

We’ve all been there, when you finally think you’ve found a parking space outside the supermarket, only to discover that you cannot use it because one car has taken two spaces. When parking is already difficult, that kind of behaviour can turn a routine food shop into another frustrating search for somewhere to leave the car.

That frustration is now being aired again across Spain after footage in Marbella showed several vehicles parked across more than one marked parking spot. The footage has prompted a fresh wave of criticism towards drivers who leave other shoppers with fewer places to park. 

Shoppers left searching for spaces

For people arriving at a busy supermarket, losing even one parking bay can make a difference. A driver who occupies two spaces does not simply park badly; they remove a place that another shopper could otherwise have used. Finding somewhere to park is already a familiar frustration for drivers in Spain. During holiday months, festivities and weekends in busy towns and cities some  drivers can spend over 20 minutes circling in search for somewhere to leave their vehicle.

New parking initiatives have also been introduced specifically to give motorists more options in areas where demand is high.  That is why deliberately taking up additional space can be particularly irritating for shoppers who are already driving around looking for a free bay.

Three spaces for one car

The latest incident happened at a Mercadona beside the bus station in Marbella. A video shared on social media by Diego Escalona Gómez, shows several vehicles parked incorrectly in different parts of the supermarket car park. Some cars were partially over the lines separating adjacent spaces, while others occupied substantially more room. One vehicle appeared to be using as many as three parking spaces.

The person filming compared the situation with his own vehicle, which he showed fitting into a single marked bay despite its large size. His accompanying message described the scene as a disgrace. The reaction online was immediate, with users criticising the drivers for failing to consider everyone else using the car park. Some joked that certain motorists needed to return to driving school to learn how to park properly. 

Why some drivers say they need extra space

Not everyone who commented blamed simple selfishness. Some social media users suggested that drivers sometimes spread across spaces because they are worried about their doors being hit or their cars being scratched. Others pointed out that some supermarket and shopping-centre bays can be narrow, particularly for larger modern vehicles.

Those explanations have done little to settle the argument. The criticism from other motorists is that a driver’s concern about protecting their own vehicle should not leave someone else unable to park. A separate viral parking incident in Valencia recently produced a similar reaction after a car was left across two spaces. The response showed just how quickly parking disputes can escalate when drivers are already struggling to find available spaces. 

Parking across spaces can be fined

There is also a legal issue behind the annoyance. Article 92 of Spain’s General Traffic Regulations requires drivers to park in a way that allows the best possible use of the remaining available space. Where parking bays are marked on the ground, vehicles are required to remain within the designated area.

That means occupying two or more spaces can be reported as an offence. The penalty can reach €200, and authorities may also remove a vehicle to a municipal depot where the circumstances warrant it, adding towing and storage costs to the driver’s bill.  The rules can also vary in their enforcement because local authorities have responsibility for many aspects of parking management. EWN has previously highlighted how parking regulations and enforcement can differ between municipalities across Spain. 

The parking problem is bigger than one Mercadona

The Marbella footage is one more example of a problem that drivers regularly encounter: a limited number of spaces being made even harder to use when motorists park without considering the markings. For the shopper arriving with a trolley, the issue is pretty straight forward.

A space occupied by one badly parked vehicle can mean another driver has to keep searching, drive further away or abandon the attempt to park close to the supermarket altogether. And when the same behaviour appears repeatedly in busy car parks, the irritation is not difficult to understand. The viral Mercadona footage has once again put that everyday parking battle firmly in the spotlight.

Imagine if you’d spent decades saving money for a secure retirement, healthcare, or just to have a comfortable life, and then suddenly found out you had to hand over nearly €77,000 for a road you never requested and can’t even use. That’s the reality for retired couple Elisabeth and Manfred Rieger, who received a bill for none other than €76,865.75 for the new Kunigundenweg road, which runs alongside their home in Großberg, Bavaria. They argue that this new road provides no real benefit to them, and it would significantly dent the savings they’ve earmarked for their retirement years.

Retirement Savings Under Threat

The Riegers have called their house home for the last 50 years. Back when they first moved in, their property was surrounded by fields. However, things changed when the municipality of Pentling took over nearby land and developed it for new housing, adding the new road right next to their property.

This hefty bill is especially troubling for them, as it directly impacts their retirement funds. Manfred has expressed that paying it would mean they’d have to dip into the savings they set aside for potential future expenses related to ageing, such as health care or other costs.

A Road With No Access

Even though the new road is literally next door, the Riegers can’t access it directly. A tall fence and a noticeable difference in the ground level stand between their home and the new road. To create a driveway, they’d have to invest in extensive excavation work, which the couple isn’t planning to undertake.

Their objection isn’t just about not using the road; it’s grounded in the fact that they have no real way to get to it and didn’t even ask for it to be constructed in the first place.

Why the Municipality Insists on Payment

The bill has been issued under Germany’s development contribution rules. These regulations allow municipalities to charge property owners for contributing to infrastructure costs when new developments occur, as long as a property is deemed to be served by them or to benefit from them in some way.

Interestingly, it’s not necessarily how much you use the road that matters in determining whether you owe anything. In the Riegers’ situation, just because they feel the road doesn’t offer them any daily advantage doesn’t negate their obligation to pay. The municipality of Pentling has acknowledged that they understand why the couple sees no daily benefit from the road, but they argue that the charge is a legal requirement based on development contribution laws and existing court rulings.

Proposal to Pay Partially Rejected

In an effort to handle this financial burden without immediately having to come up with the whole sum, the Riegers suggested splitting the payment, half upfront and the rest secured through a land charge in favor of the municipality.

Unfortunately, the municipal council shot down that proposal nearly unanimously. Afterward, the couple claims they were informed in a phone call that there might be a possibility of an extension for payment.

Council’s Further Discussion of the Bill

The situation is set to go back to the municipal council for another review, leaving the retired couple in limbo as they wait to see if they will be granted extra time to settle this hefty bill.

For the Riegers, the final decision could significantly affect how much of their hard-earned retirement savings will still be available for their future needs.