Decision
MR X and Insolvency Service of Ireland (ISI)
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-162124-G4Z2Q3
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-162124-G4Z2Q3
Published on
Whether the ISI was justified in refusing access to records relating to complaints concerning Personal Insolvency Practitioners (PIPs) on the grounds that the FOI Act does not apply to the records sought, pursuant to Schedule 1 Part 1(r) of the Act
4 December 2025
In a request dated 8 July 2025, the applicant made a request to the Insolvency Service of Ireland (ISI) for records relating to its role as the statutory regulator of Personal Insolvency Practitioners (PIPs) under the Personal Insolvency Act 2012. The applicant sought access to records relating to the receipt, processing, outcomes, and oversight of complaints made to the ISI concerning PIPs for the period 1 January 2013 to 1 July 2025. Specifically, the applicant requested the following:
“Statistical Breakdown – Complaints Against PIPs
For each calendar year from 2013 to date :
1. The total number of complaints received by the ISI regarding PIPs.
2. The number of complaints deemed to fall within the scope of Section 178 of the Personal Insolvency Act 2012.
3. The number of complaints dismissed as:
• Frivolous or vexatious,
• Without substance,
• More appropriate for resolution by informal or other means.
4. The number of complaints resolved through:
• Mediation or informal engagement,
• Voluntary correction or withdrawal by the PIP.
5. The number of complaints escalated to formal investigation under Section 178(4).
6. The number of complaints upheld (in whole or in part).
7. The number of complaints resulting in:
• A formal finding of improper conduct,
• The issuance of a sanction (warning, censure, suspension, revocation, or referral to court).
A breakdown (in tabular form if available) of the types of complaints received, grouped by category (e.g. procedural failure, failure to inform debtor, failure to disclose creditor objections, unauthorised withdrawal of appeals, conflict of interest, breach of MARP obligation, etc.). If this data is maintained in a structured format (e.g. internal tracking sheets or case summaries), provide a copy or extract.
Copies of any of the following :
1. Internal reports, briefing notes, audit summaries, or communications prepared for:
• ISI senior management,
• The Department of Justice,
• External oversight bodies (including Oireachtas committees),
• Relating to complaints against PIPs, failure of PIP oversight, or systemic concerns.
2. Drafts or internal correspondence relating to the decision not to report PIP complaints or disciplinary actions in the ISI’s published annual reports from 2013 to present.
3. Any memoranda, discussion notes, or briefing materials addressing whether complaint outcomes or misconduct by PIPs should be made public.
If any complaints were upheld or sanctions issued, provide (in anonymised form where appropriate):
• The year and summary of the conduct involved,
• The nature of the sanction applied,
• Whether the name of the PIP was made public or reported to any external body. If no complaints were ever upheld or no sanctions issued, confirm this explicitly.”
On 11 August 2025, the ISI refused the applicant’s request under Schedule 1, Part 1(r) of the FOI Act. The ISI said that Schedule 1, Part 1(r) provides that the ISI is not a public body for the purposes of the FOI Act in the performance of its functions under Part 2 of the Personal Insolvency Act 2012, other than insofar as it relates to records concerning the general administration of those functions. The ISI said that the records requested by the applicant relate to personal insolvency related proceedings and cannot reasonably be said to concern the general administration of the performance of its functions. In the circumstances, the ISI said the FOI Act does not apply to the records sought.
On 12 August 2025, the applicant requested an internal review of the ISI’s decision. The applicant said he did not request debtor case files or specific insolvency proceedings. He said he sought:
• Annual complaint statistics;
• Category breakdowns and trends;
• Internal oversight and audit summaries;
• Briefing notes to senior management or the Department of Justice;
• Records of decisions about publication of complaint outcomes;
• Anonymised summaries of disciplinary actions.
The applicant argued that these are systemic, policy-level, and governance records about how the ISI manages and oversees the performance of PIPs. He said such oversight is an administrative function and falls within “general administration ” for a partially included body under Schedule 1, Part 1(r).
On 3 September 2025, the ISI affirmed its original decision. It said, records relating to complaints against PIPs relate to the ISI’s core regulation and investigative functions under the Personal Insolvency Act 2012 and therefore cannot reasonably be said to concern the general administration of the ISI. On the same day, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of the ISI’s decision. He said the records he is seeking are administrative and oversight records, and concern how the ISI manages, tracks, and reports its regulatory work.
I have now completed my review in accordance with section 22(2) of the FOI Act. In carrying out my review, I have had regard to the correspondence outlined above and to submissions made by the ISI and the applicant. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
This review is concerned solely with whether the ISI was justified in refusing the applicant’s request for records relating to complaints made concerning PIPs, on the basis that the FOI Act does not apply to the records sought, pursuant to Schedule 1, Part 1(r) of the Act.
In his submissions to this Office, the applicant referred to a number of other regulators which deal with sensitive complaints, all of which he said publish statistical information about complaints. He said, the ISI’s refusal to release even aggregated complaint statistics makes it a clear outlier among Irish regulators. The applicant also asked this Office to consider the ISI’s parallel refusal of his Subject Access Request (SAR), made under GDPR, as further evidence of a lack of transparency that weighs in favour of disclosure. It is important to note that this Office has no remit to investigate complaints, to adjudicate on how FOI bodies perform their functions generally, or to act as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism with respect to actions taken by FOI bodies. My role in this case is confined to considering whether a right of access exists under the FOI Act to the records sought by the applicant.
Schedule 1, Part 1(r)
Section 6(2) of the FOI Act provides that any organisation specified in Schedule 1, Part 1 of the FOI Act shall, subject to the provisions of that Part, be a public body for the purpose of the Act. Schedule 1, Part 1 contains details of bodies that are partially included for the purposes of the Act and also details certain specified records that are excluded. If records sought come within the description of the exclusions on Part 1, the FOI Act does not apply, and no right of access exists to such records held by the body.
Schedule 1, Part 1(r) provides that the ISI is not a public body for the purposes of the FOI Act in the performance of its functions under Part 2 of the Personal Insolvency Act 2012, other than insofar as it relates to records concerning the general administration of those functions. In other words, the only records held by the ISI that are subject to the FOI Act are those that relate to the general administration of the ISI. In accordance with Part 1(r), all other records held by the ISI are excluded, including records relating to the core functions of the ISI.
The FOI Act does not define the term “general administration ” as provided for in Part 1(r). This Office considers the term to cover records relating to the administration of the body, as opposed to say, records relating to its operational matters or core functions. In the case of a number of specified public bodies, the right of access afforded by the FOI Act is restricted to records relating to their general administration. We consider the term “general administration ” to refer to records which have to do with the management of a public body such as records relating to personnel, pay matters, recruitment, accounts, information technology, accommodation, internal organisation, office procedures etc.
In its submissions, the ISI provided a summary of the records it searched for and identified within the scope of the request. It said that these records all relate to complaints against PIPs which is part of ISI’s core regulatory and investigative functions under the Personal Insolvency Act 2012. It said that the records do not concern the general administration of the ISI.
The ISI stated that it had regard to previous OIC decisions which outlined our understanding of “general administration ” to pertain to records relating to the management of an FOI body, such as records relating to personnel, pay matters, recruitment, accounts, IT, accommodation, internal organisation, office procedures, and the like. The ISI said that all relevant records it identified were deemed not to fall within its general administration and so were withheld under Schedule 1, Part 1(r).
The Investigating Officer provided the applicant with an update on the ISI’s submissions and gave him the opportunity to provide further submissions of his own, which he duly did. In his submissions, the applicant said that the ISI’s interpretation of Schedule 1, Pat 1(r) was overly broad and its interpretation of “general administration ” is far too narrow. He stated that his request did not seek casefiles and only sought aggregate statistics, category and trend breakdowns, oversight and governance records, briefings to senior management or the Department of Justice, records about the decision not to publish complaint outcomes, and anonymised summaries of disciplinary actions. He claimed there is a clear distinction between case-specific regulation, which he said he did not request, and system oversight and governance, which he requested. These, he argued, are clearly administrative oversight documents, not operational or regulatory casework.
While the applicant noted that Schedule 1, Part 1(r) is not subject to a public-interest test, he said the context remains important and that the ISI is the only statutory regulator of PIPs.
He claims, complaint statistics have never been published, oversight trends have never been disclosed, and no PIP disciplinary outcome has ever been made public. He said his request concerns transparency in the operation of a national regulatory system, not private insolvency matters. The applicant said the records he is seeking are administrative by nature and release would not prejudice any regulatory casework. The applicant also said that the ISI failed to consider partial release of the records he requested, under section 18 of the FOI Act.
Firstly, it is also important to note that section 13(4) of the Act provides that, subject to the Act, in deciding whether to grant or refuse an FOI request, any reason that the requester gives for the request and any belief or opinion of the FOI body as to the reasons for the request shall be disregarded. As noted above, my role in this case is confined to considering whether a right of access exists under the FOI Act to the records sought by the applicant.
It is important to note too that the FOI Act applies only to a very limited category of records held by ISI. Schedule 1, Part 1(r) provides that the ISI is not a public body for the purposes of the FOI Act in the performance of its functions under Part 2 of the Personal Insolvency Act 2012, other than insofar as it relates to records concerning the general administration of those functions. Part 2, Section 9(h) of the Personal Insolvency Act directly refers to the ISI’s functions in relation to Personal Insolvency Practitioners (PIPs). It refers to the ISI’s functions to authorise individuals to carry on practice as PIPs and to supervise and regulate persons practising as PIPs.
While the applicant has argued that the information he is seeking is not case specific and is concerned with oversight and governance, it is clear in my view that any relevant records held by the ISI would concern the performance of its functions under Part 2 of the Personal Insolvency Act 2012. While I have had regard to the applicant’s submissions, I am satisfied that the records sought do not concern the general administration of the ISI’s performance of its functions. Regardless of the applicant’s views about the lack of transparency around the information he is seeking, if the FOI Act does not apply to the records sought, then no right of access exists, and this Office has no further role in the matter. Furthermore, if the Act does not apply to the records sought, then the applicant’s arguments about partial access to the records under section 18 of the Act is of no consequence to my review.
Having regard to the nature of the request and the description of the records sought, I am satisfied that the records at issue in this case concern the performance of the functions of the ISI under Part 2 of the Personal Insolvency Act, as opposed to the general administration of these functions. Accordingly, I find that the ISI was justified in its decision to refuse access to the records sought on the ground that they are specifically excluded from the scope of the FOI Act, pursuant to Schedule 1, Part 1(r) of the Act.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby affirm the ISI’s decision to refuse the applicant’s request pursuant to Schedule 1, Part 1(r) of the FOI Act on the basis that the FOI Act does not apply to the records sought.
Section 24 of the FOI Act sets out detailed provisions for an appeal to the High Court by a party to a review, or any other person affected by the decision. In summary, such an appeal, normally on a point of law, must be initiated not later than four weeks after notice of the decision was given to the person bringing the appeal.
____________________
Richard Crowley
Investigator