Councils Blocking Public Right to Object: £8.8 Billion Fraud Risk Exposed

Each year, councils across England are legally required to throw open their financial books to public scrutiny. It’s not a token gesture — it’s a vital pillar of democratic accountability, giving the public a rare legal power to inspect, question, and formally object to how their money is spent.

This right is enshrined in the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 — a law designed to ensure that local electors can challenge potentially unlawful or wasteful spending.

But there’s growing evidence that some councils are quietly undermining this safeguard — not by changing the law, but by delaying or withholding financial records during the legal inspection period, making it practically impossible for residents to exercise their rights in time.

The Right to Object, Explained

During a strict 30-working-day window each year — known in law as “the period for the exercise of public rights” — every registered voter in a council area has the legal right to:

1. Inspect the council’s draft accounts and all related documents (e.g. contracts, invoices, internal correspondence);

2. Ask formal questions about the accounts to the external auditor;

3. Submit a written objection to any item they believe is:

   • Unlawful;

   • A matter of serious public concern;

   • Evidence of poor value for money or governance failure.

If accepted, the external auditor can issue a public interest report, apply to the High Court for a ruling on unlawfulness, or make formal recommendations that the council must debate in public.

This is one of the only direct powers ordinary residents have to hold councils to account between elections.

A Narrow Window — And a Legal Trap

The 30-day window is a hard legal deadline. Once it closes, the public’s right to object expires, even if serious wrongdoing is later uncovered.

But this power is meaningless if residents are denied timely access to supporting records. Councils are legally obliged to make available not just the summary accounts, but also the documents that justify them: contract details, invoices, officer reports, and correspondence.

Yet in many cases, councils have been found to:

• Delay responding to document requests;

• Release heavily redacted files;

• Claim commercial confidentiality without basis;

• Withhold key documents until just before the window closes — or even after.

If the public cannot inspect the relevant information in time, they cannot raise a valid objection — and the window shuts, regardless of what the records may reveal.

This turns a statutory right into a procedural illusion.

The Fraud Risk Is Real — And Growing

The Annual_Fraud_Indicator 2023, published by Crowe UK — a leading forensic accounting and risk consultancy — in partnership with the University of Portsmouth’s Centre for Cybercrime and Economic Crime — a nationally recognised academic hub for fraud research — estimates that fraud in local government (excluding benefits) cost the public £8.8 billion in 2021–2022.

That figure has risen from £7.8 billion in 2017 and includes:

• £5.04 billion in procurement fraud, such as inflated invoices, fake suppliers, or rigged tendering;

• £1.16 billion in payroll fraud, including ghost employees and overstated salaries;

• £2 billion in housing, pension, and grant-related fraud.

These are not abstract figures. Every pound lost to fraud is a pound not spent on housing, social care, planning, education, housing, libraries, or roads.

The report also draws on legal insight from Peters & Peters Solicitors LLP, a market leader in fraud-related and complex financial disputes. Their contribution underscores how lack of timely oversight at the local level leaves public bodies exposed to high-value fraud schemes — many of which are detectable only through real-time scrutiny.

This makes the 30-day public inspection period more than a procedural formality — it is a vital anti-fraud safeguard that allows members of the public to intervene where oversight may otherwise fail.

When councils fail to provide the necessary documents in time, they aren’t just delaying transparency — they are denying the only cost-free route the public has to detect and expose financial wrongdoing.

The Courts Have Spoken

Several legal cases reinforce that obstructing access is unlawful.

• The courts have repeatedly held (see R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531) that where a statutory right is conferred, it must be capable of being meaningfully exercised.

• If the authority frustrates or delays the provision of information, they arguably breach their duty of procedural fairness.

• Derek Moss v Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames [2021] EWHC 1032 (Admin)

Mr Moss requested financial records including invoices. The council withheld them. The High Court ruled it had acted unlawfully, affirming that the right of inspection under Section 26 of the 2014 Act includes meaningful, timely access to unredacted supporting documents.

• Veolia ES Nottinghamshire Ltd v Nottinghamshire County Council [2010] EWCA Civ 1214

This Court of Appeal decision confirmed that transparency in public contracts overrides vague claims of commercial sensitivity.

• Good Law Project v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2021] EWHC 1032 (Admin)

Here, the High Court ruled that failure to publish COVID contracts on time was unlawful, reinforcing that delayed transparency undermines the public interest just as much as non-disclosure.

Together, these rulings make it crystal clear: access delayed is access denied — and denial can be unlawful.

How the Objection Process Works

To lodge an objection, a registered elector must write to the council’s external auditor with:

• Their name and address;

• Confirmation of their local residency;

• The item in the accounts being challenged;

• A statement of why it’s unlawful or of general concern;

• What action is sought (e.g. a public interest report).

A copy must also be sent to the council.

But unless you receive the relevant documents within the 30-day inspection period, you cannot form an evidence-based objection in time. Once the deadline passes, the auditor is legally barred from accepting any new objections.

And it’s not just residents — journalists also have legal rights of access during the same inspection period. Although they cannot lodge objections, they can inspect and copy records to support investigative reporting, exposing fraud, waste or abuse in the public interest.

What the Auditor Can Do

If an objection is accepted, the external auditor can:

• Issue a Public Interest Report, which the council must publish and debate;

• Apply to the High Court to declare a transaction unlawful;

• Make recommendations that the council must respond to publicly;

• Trigger broader investigations into systemic failure.

But the auditor’s powers rely entirely on the quality and timing of the public’s input. And that depends on timely access to records — which is precisely where the system is failing.

What Needs to Change?

There is a growing recognition that the current system is vulnerable to abuse through delay, redaction, or selective disclosure. To restore public trust and ensure transparency, several practical reforms are urgently needed:

• Penalties for councils that delay or obstruct access to supporting financial documents during the inspection window;

• Auditor discretion to extend the objection period where councils fail to meet their disclosure duties;

• Clear and enforceable national guidance setting out exactly what must be disclosed and when;

• Greater public awareness of the 30-day rights and how residents and journalists can use them.

At present, accountability relies too heavily on voluntary compliance by councils. Without reform, the public’s right to object risks becoming a right in name only — easy to ignore, and impossible to enforce.

Why This Right Still Matters

In 2024/25, Local Government Revenue expenditure alone stood at £127.1 billion, and capital expenditure in 2025/26 of £29.3 billion, so oversight matters more than ever.

The right to object is one of the last direct tools available to ordinary citizens to scrutinise local finances — no legal fees, no red tape, just democracy in action.

But unless the documents are disclosed on time, the right means nothing. It becomes a hollow promise.

To safeguard public money — and public trust — the 30-day window must not be a blackout curtain. It must be a window of genuine transparency.

Because democracy doesn’t end at the ballot box. It continues in the budget.

We would be interested in hearing about your experiences of Inspecting Council Accounts. Email: TheShepwayVoxTeam@proton.me in confidence.

The Shepway Vox Team

Dissent is NOT a Crime