Which of the following is a valid ground for the FSPO to refuse to investigate a complaint?

• A. A The complaint is frivolous or vexatious.
• B. B The complaint is timely.
• C. C The complaint has merit.
• D. D The complaint is about something outside FSPO's remit.

Answer: (A)

The situation the question tests is when the ombudsman can choose not to take on a case. A legitimate reason to decline is when the complaint is frivolous or vexatious, meaning it lacks seriousness, is intended to harass, or serves no genuine pursuit of a remedy. In such cases, pursuing an investigation would waste time and resources that are better spent on substantive issues.

The other options don’t provide a solid ground for refusing in the same way. Being timely isn’t in itself a reason to refuse the case; a complaint can be timely but still lack proper substance or fall outside the ombudsman’s jurisdiction. If a complaint has merit, that would typically lead to an investigation rather than a refusal. And while issues outside the FSPO’s remit can’t be investigated, the question focuses on the explicit grounds that justify refusing, and frivolous or vexatious behavior is the clear, direct basis considered appropriate for refusing to review a complaint.