Decision
Mr. X & Louth County Council (the Council)
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-161984-W2S1H3
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-161984-W2S1H3
Published on
Whether the Council was justified, under section 27(12) of the FOI Act, in refusing the applicant’s request on the basis that the estimated cost of the search and retrieval of the records sought exceeds the prescribed ceiling limit of €700
20 November 2025
In a request dated 7 February 2025, the applicant sought access to all records between 1 February 2024 and 31 January 2025, in relation to the changes envisaged to the railway bridge located on the R132 on the Dublin Road in Drogheda, associated with the
Active Travel Plan in preparation by Louth County Council for the R132 route from the entrance to Drogheda Railway Station to Southgate Shopping Centre. The applicant stated that the records should include:
(i) All notes (electronic and handwritten) made by officials of Louth County Council who attended meetings with the National Transport Authority (NTA) in relation to plans for the above.
(ii) All papers prepared by the Council, the NTA or circulated by any party, at meetings with the NTA in relation to the plans.
(iii) All agendas prepared for any of the above meetings.
(iv) All correspondence (electronic and handwritten, including SMS and WhatsApp messages) transmitted between Council officials and the NTA or its representatives in relation to the proposals.
On 21 February 2025, the Council informed the applicant that processing his request would involve the charging of search and retrieval fees under section 27 of the FOI Act. The Council estimated that the services of two staff members for a total of 45 hours would be the minimum amount of time required to efficiently complete the search and retrieval work on the request. It stated that the prescribed amount chargeable for each hour is €20, resulting in an overall fee of €900, exclusive of copying charges. The Council said that the estimated cost of processing the request is in excess of the overall ceiling limit of €700. On this basis, the Council proposed to refuse the request unless it could be refined so as to lower the estimated cost of search, retrieval and copying below the ceiling limit. The Council said it would be happy to assist the applicant in refining his request and invited the applicant to contact the Senior Engineer to discuss what options are open to the applicant in this regard.
On 28 February 2025, the applicant sought an internal review of the Council’s decision. He said, despite a number of attempts to make contact with the Senior Engineer, he had been unable to elicit a response or any communication which would allow him to discuss refining the request.
On 21 March 2025, the Council affirmed its original decision. The Council said there is a substantial number of records to be reviewed in order to process the request. It said that records relating to the R132 Dublin Road Active Travel project, the railway bridge (NTA/Irish Rail/consultants) and records/communications associated with the Dart+ programme would have to be searched. The Council said it deemed 45 hours to be a reasonable estimate of the time involved in processing the request, meaning that the cost estimation of €900 is still in excess of the €700 ceiling. The Council reiterated its offer to assist the applicant in refining his request and asked him to contact the Senior Engineer to discuss the matter.
On 31 August 2025, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of the Council’s decision. In his application, the applicant stated that he had tried to contact the Senior Engineer to discuss his request and also tried to contact the CEO of the Council and its FOI Unit to discuss the matter. He said he has been unable to elicit a response, thus rendering a reduction in the scope impossible for him to achieve. The applicant also provided copies of emails from four occasions on which he attempted to contact the Council to discuss his request which he said the Council did not respond to.
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 the submissions made by the Council 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 Council was justified, under section 27(12) of the FOI Act, in refusing the applicant’s request on the ground that the estimated cost of searching for and retrieving records coming within the scope of the request exceeds the overall ceiling limit of €700, and in doing so whether the Council assisted the requester to amend or limit the request in order to bring the charges to an amount equal to or less than the overall ceiling limit.
Section 27 provides for the mandatory charging by FOI bodies for the estimated cost of the search for and retrieval and copying (SRC) of records in respect of the grant of an FOI request. Among other things, search and retrieval includes time spent by the FOI body in determining whether it holds the information sought, locating the information or records containing the information, retrieving the information or documents, extracting the information from the files, documents, electronic or other information sources containing both the information and other material not relevant to the request, and preparing a schedule specifying the record for consideration for release.
The amount of the cost of the SRC charge must be calculated at the rate of such amount per hour as stands prescribed (currently €20) in respect of the time that was spent, or ought, in the opinion of the head concerned, to have been spent, by each person concerned in carrying out the search and retrieval efficiently. Subject to subsection (12) of section 27, the amount of the SRC charge must not exceed such amount as stands prescribed (currently €500) as the appropriate maximum SRC charge.
Under section 27(12), where the amount of SRC charges exceeds or is likely to exceed the overall ceiling limit prescribed (currently €700) the FOI body must inform the requester, and must assist the requester if the requester wishes to amend or limit the request in order to reduce the SRC charges that arise or are likely to arise to an amount less than or equal to the overall ceiling limit. If the requester does not amend or limit the request such that the charges that arise or are likely to arise are reduced to an amount less than or equal to the overall ceiling limit, the body may refuse the request. Where the body decides, nevertheless, to process the request, the requester must pay the full cost of the charges likely to be payable.
In its submissions to this Office, the Council said it received another related FOI request from the applicant on the same day as the request under review in this case. The request in this review is referred to by the Council as FOI 16-2025 and the subsequent request it received from the applicant on the same day is referred to as FOI 17-2025.
The Council said that it considered both requests to be the same in scope and subject matter. The Council outlined FOI 17-2025 as follows:
“All records of correspondence transmitted to, and received from individuals and organisations, in relation to the Active Travel Plan in preparation by Louth County Council for the R132 route from the entrance to Drogheda Railway Station to Southgate Shopping Centre .
The records to include all communications to and from all individuals and organisations (emails, letters, text messages, WhatsApp messages etc .)
The records to exclude all communications to and from myself .”
The Council said that while worded slightly differently, the request in FOI 17-2025 is the same subject matter as FOI 16-2025, with the exception of a time limit in FOI 16-2025. The Council said that it engaged with the applicant on FOI 17-2025 and a refinement was agreed, reducing the scope of the request to correspondence referred to at a meeting between the applicant and an official from the Council’s Active Travel Team. I understand the Council part-granted the applicant’s request in case FOI 17-2025. The Council said that it estimated that the time expended on the search and retrieval for the refined request in FOI 17-2025 was circa 30 hours.
The Council said that there was no specific engagement with the applicant on the applicant’s request that is under review in this case (Council reference FOI 16-2025), but stated that it is satisfied that engagement did take place given the concurrent nature of the requests on the same subject matter and scope. The Council considers both requests to be substantially the same, with engagement on FOI 17-2025 regarding refinement and subsequent part grant. It said, if FOI 17-2025 had not been submitted, engagement would have focused on FOI 16-2025, with the same refinement sought and ultimate decision. The Council noted that in the discussions with the applicant regarding refining FOI 17-2025 (7 March 2025), the applicant did not raise or discuss the matter of refinement in respect of FOI 16-2025.
The Council said that the applicant has submitted a further 13 FOI requests pertaining to the same scope and subject matter, with the majority broken down into very specific and short time periods. It stated that FOI 21-2025 was part-granted to the applicant and took approximately 10 hours to process. The Council said that this and FOI 17-2025 represent a subset of documents which would have been included within the scope of FOI 16-2025. The Council said that the applicant provided a very limited window of opportunity for engagement when considered in the context of the date the original decision issued pertaining to FOI 16-2025 (21 February 2025) and the date of appeal by the applicant on 28 February 2025, which in the view of the Council is not a reasonable timeframe.
The Council stated that, while the ‘balance’ of records that would fall under the scope of FOI 16-2025 to be considered is reduced by the part-grant of records in FOI 17-2025 and FOI 21-2025, FOI 16-2025 would still require circa 20 hours of search and retrieval time and therefore a fee would apply if required to process the ’balance’.
The Council also said that it has had a number of in-person meetings with the applicant relating to the subject matter of his FOI requests. It said that it has committed to facilitating a meeting between the applicant and the NTA once an Option Report specifically relating to the rail bridge is completed. However, the Council said that refinement of FOI 16-2025 was not discussed at the in-person meetings with the applicant so far.
In response to a query by the Investigating Officer about the scope of FOI 16-2025, given the Council’s comments about the similarities of between FOI 16-2025 and FOI 17- 2025, the Council questioned the appropriateness of any such request that is based on the premise that FOI 16-2025 is now easier to process because of the processing of subsequent FOI requests made by the applicant. The Council said its decision to refuse FOI 16-2025 was based on the scale of the request and estimate of time associated with search and retrieval.
Section 27(12) allows an FOI body to refuse to process a request where the amount of a Search and Retrieval Charge (SRC) exceeds, or is likely to exceed, a prescribed amount, currently €700. This is referred to as the overall ceiling limit. As noted above, the Council estimated the SRC would be €900, thereby exceeding the overall ceiling limit.
Section 27(12)(a)(i) provides that the body shall inform the requester where the amount of a Search and Retrieval Charge (SRC) exceeds, or is likely to exceed, the overall ceiling limit. Section 27(12)(a)(ii) provides that the body shall assist the requester if the requester wishes to amend or limit the request in order to reduce the charges that arise or are likely to arise under subsection (1) to an amount less than or equal to the overall ceiling limit so prescribed.
While I accept the Council offered to assist the applicant in amending his request, it is clear, in my view, that it did not provide any assistance to him when he made efforts to engage with the Council in respect of its decision to refuse his request under review in this case. While the Council may have engaged with the applicant in respect of his other related request (Council reference FOI 17- 2025), the fact remains that the applicant made a separate request that is the subject of this review. In circumstances where the Council refused the request in this case under section 27(12), it must assist the requester if the requester wishes to amend or limit the request in order to reduce the SRC charges (my emphasis). It is evident that the applicant contacted the Council on a number of occasions to seek its assistance.
In the circumstances I am satisfied that the Council did not assist the applicant in refining the scope of his request that is at issue in this case. As the Council did not comply with the requirement to assist the applicant under section 27(12(a)(ii), I find that it was not justified in refusing his request under section 27(12). Accordingly, I hereby annul the Council’s decision and direct it to consider the applicant’s request afresh. The applicant will have a right of internal review and subsequent review by this Office if he is not satisfied with the Council’s new decision.
In considering the applicant’s request afresh, I suggest the Council and the applicant re-engage to discuss the scope of his request. Given the Council’s comments about the similarities between the request in this case and FOI 17-2025 (and subsequent requests) it may be possible to reach an agreement about amending the scope of the applicant’s request or about agreeing what further records are outstanding at this time. If the applicant does not amend or limit the request such that the charges that arise or are likely to arise are reduced to an amount less than or equal to the overall ceiling limit, the Council may still refuse the request, after having complied with the requirement to assist the applicant.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby annul the Council’s decision to refuse the applicant’s request under section 27(12)(a) of the FOI Act and I direct the Council to consider the applicant’s request afresh.
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