Well, this local elector has fundamental concerns about the quality of the Audit Commission's work
It contradicts itself
Its staff contradict themselves
It has misled at least two Parliaments within the United Kingdom, and a number of government departments
It publishes defamatory allegations on its web site in respect of identifiable individuals (especially via the NFI FAQ on the Section 11(1) discount). That document falsely alleges that the data mining shows that people are simultaneously making two inconsistent claims at the same time, a belief which the AC has denied ever having held. It has also dismissed the fact that it would not be true to say this as 'mere pedantry'. It beggars belief that a solicitor could dismiss legal facts as 'mere pedantry' but the AC one most certainly did just this.
It wrote a code of data matching practice which fundamentally misrepresented the NFI and how it works and gave this to the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament - abd it decides when it suits it to ignore the provisions of this code
It has a clear political agenda in respect of the right to privacy and data protection (or lack of it) which is a political agenda and not an accountancy based one
It actively encourages maladministration and actively praises the practices of councils which fail to abide by council tax discount law and public law in respect of provision of clear, fair and accurate information to the taxpayer
It allocates complaints to employees deeply concerned personally with the issue, not to independent people who can take an objective view (and see its own complaints procedure)
So far from being transparent, it took a refusal to provide one audit guide all the way to an F of I tribunal
One department fails/refuses to accept or abide by briefings provided by the legal department
It quite happily makes illegitimate not to mention disturbing allegations about improper relationships within families
Generally it acts in ways which make it difficult for a local auditor to do precisely what it tells Parliament it wants to happen, as it does here in its evidence to the ad hoc sub committee:
46 It is unclear to whom a local elector would go if they had fundamental concerns about the quality or delivery of auditors’ work at smaller bodies. DCLG will need to identify an appropriate body, if it is not the department itself, that can ultimately take responsibility for monitoring the system overall.