No matter which country you’re in, filing a complaint against a public administration can be so frustrating that many people think twice before even starting. From excessively long and complex procedures to a lack of effective oversight mechanisms, the experience of seeking justice for an administrative error or an unfair situation can turn into a real ordeal. Feelings of isolation and despair are common, as the system often seems designed to discourage citizens rather than help them.
Inefficiency and lack of transparency are constants in these processes. We’re not talking about simple everyday paperwork, but about the bureaucratic maze that unfolds when someone decides to file a complaint. While private companies must comply with regulations and consumer protection laws that force them to respond to customers (which I’ll cover in another article along with its own challenges), public agencies operate under their own rules and often seem to function with a sense of impunity. The time lost, the energy drained, and the resources spent in the process often cost more than the issue or error being contested in the first place.
A public administration without effective external oversight (whether by citizens or supervisory mechanisms) turns into a bureaucratic monster that perpetuates itself, feeding off its own inefficiency
Alberto Calles “Alberka”
The hurdles of filing a complaint with the administration
One of the biggest problems when dealing with public agencies is excessive bureaucracy. Procedures seem endless, and there is no clear guide to help navigate them. In many cases, the number of forms and documents required is overwhelming. Moreover, there is no uniformity in procedures, and the experience of filing a complaint can vary dramatically depending on the agency or location. There is no centralized platform to streamline and simplify the process, forcing citizens to go from one office to another, from one department or service to the next, with no guarantees that their case will move forward.
Spain is a clear example of this inefficiency. Citizens can file administrative appeals, but these are often ineffective. The process can drag on for months, or even years, leaving the complainant stuck in an administrative limbo. When responses finally come, they are often generic and unsatisfactory. Oversight mechanisms, such as complaints or appeals, rarely result in penalties for officials or corrections of administrative errors, leaving citizens trapped in a process where there is no true accountability.
Discretion and lack of consequences
Another worrying aspect is the discretion with which officials operate. Depending on who handles the case, the response can vary significantly. This introduces a high degree of subjectivity into the process and undermines trust in the system. There are no effective accountability mechanisms for officials who make mistakes or delay proceedings. With no consequences for them, the process becomes an unbalanced game where citizens are the ones who always lose.
Meanwhile, the damage to those who dare to file a complaint is significant. They may suffer financial losses, stress, project delays, or simply the frustration of seeing their rights ignored. In the end, many decide to abandon the complaint, which benefits the administration, as it feeds off the system’s inefficiency.
Control mechanisms: an illusion of justice
In theory, citizens should have tools to defend themselves against these abuses. A prime example is Spain, where the Ombudsman (Defensor del Pueblo) exists to protect citizens’ rights against the administration’s arbitrary actions (a figure that also exists in other countries under different names and functions). However, in practice, this mechanism is profoundly ineffective. While the Ombudsman can issue recommendations and reports, it has no binding power, meaning that agencies are not obliged to follow its directives. This makes the Ombudsman more of a symbolic figure than a functional one, with no real ability to influence poor administrative practices.
Moreover, the Ombudsman’s position is often politicized. Since the role frequently depends on political structures, there is a risk that it may act based on partisan or ideological interests rather than impartially safeguarding citizens’ rights. This lack of independence erodes trust in the Ombudsman’s work and means there is little incentive to push for structural reforms to improve the system. Consequently, the Ombudsman becomes an institutional player with no real power to challenge the status quo, more focused on maintaining its existence than on effectively addressing administrative abuses.
The problem is structural: the institution seems designed to be just another cog in the bureaucratic machine, with no potential to drive profound change. In the end, the Ombudsman only adds another layer of bureaucracy, without addressing the root of the problem.
In addition, consumer protection laws, which are rigorously applied in the private sector, do not carry the same weight with public agencies. This leaves citizens completely unprotected against a bureaucratic system that operates with few or no penalties. The lack of effective oversight perpetuates the disadvantaged position of the complainant, who must face a system that seems designed to frustrate any attempt at redress.
A system that could improve
The frustration felt by those who dare to file a complaint against a public administration is no accident—it’s the result of a system that seems designed not to work. However, there are ways to improve this process. First, simplifying administrative procedures is essential. Creating a centralized, accessible platform where citizens can file and track all their complaints across all levels of public administration and agencies would be a crucial step in reducing frustration. Furthermore, officials should be subject to greater oversight and penalties in cases of mismanagement or unjustified delays.
There also needs to be greater transparency in the management of complaints, with shorter, clearer deadlines and more uniform procedures. Implementing an external audit system with decision-making power to oversee administrative processes could be a solution to ensure that public agencies act fairly and efficiently.
However, the reality is that today, there is little hope for significant change in this area. The ability for reform within public administration is severely limited, for reasons I will address in another article, including misaligned incentives, rigid structures, and a lack of political will to reform a system that, though dysfunctional, has survived for decades. This lack of change perpetuates a bureaucracy that seems shielded from the evolution it desperately needs, leaving citizens with little expectation that their complaints will be handled with the efficiency and justice they deserve.
