From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-162477-K1T0C7 OIC-162480-G1Z7S8 OIC-162801-B4H5J5 OIC-163799-N2Z4T1 OIC-163801-Q8Q8T2
Published on
Whether the Council was justified in charging the applicant a fee to carry out an internal review of each of the decisions it made on the five FOI requests numbered above
26 November 2025
The applicant made the five separate FOI requests that are the subject of this review to the Council between 18 July 2025 and 22 September 2025 requesting access to a broad range of records relating to social housing, including information about social housing allocations and medical assessments/adjudicators. One of the requests sought staffing information about the Council’s Housing Department and another request sought details about taxi companies used by the Council and taxi expenditure.
The Council refused each of the five requests under section 15(1)(g) of the FOI Act on the basis that it considered each request to be frivolous or vexatious or part of a pattern of manifestly unreasonable requests. Three of the requests were refused in letters dated 15 August 2025, one was refused in a letter dated 13 October 2025, and another was refused in a letter dated 14 October 2025. In each of its decision letters, the Council notified the applicant of her right to request an internal review and informed her in each case that there is an upfront fee in order to process a request for internal review. The applicant subsequently sought an internal review of the Council’s decisions in each of her five requests. The applicant objected to paying the internal fee in each case.
In subsequent correspondence with the applicant, the Council informed her that the charging of fees in respect of an internal review is provided for under Section 27(13) of the FOI Act and that it would proceed with her requests for internal reviews upon receipt of the required upfront fee.
In separate applications to this Office made on 14 September 2025, 22 September 2025 and 21 October 2025, the applicant applied for a review of the Council’s decision in each of the five cases. This Office notified the applicant that each of her applications for review was accepted on the basis that the review would be concerned solely with the Council’s decision to charge an internal review fee in each case and would not consider the Council’s substantive decision to refuse her requests under section 15(1)(g) of the Act.
The applicant, in further correspondence with this Office, and in submissions in support of her applications, said she did not believe she ought to have to pay the upfront fee for the internal review requests because, in her view, the decisions were not made in accordance with fair procedures, the decision-maker has a conflict of interest, the process lacked independence and impartiality, breaching the principles of natural and constitutional justice. She said the refusals were standardised, repetitive and issued in bulk, showing a lack of genuine consideration, and the Council failed to meet its obligations under the FOI Act’s Publication Scheme and the Code of Practice, leading to unnecessary FOI requests. She said the appeal fees should be waived due to the lack of a fair first-instance process.
As each of the five cases referenced above concern a review of the Council’s decision to charge the applicant a fee to process her requests for internal review, I have decided to issue a composite decision covering all five applications made to this Office. 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 applicant in support of her applications for review. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
While the applicant sought an internal review of the Council’s decision to refuse all five requests under section 15(1)(g) of the Act, the Council did not process her requests for an internal review as the applicant has not paid the mandatory internal review fee. As no internal review of the Council’s original decisions have been carried out to date, I have no jurisdiction at this time to review the Council’s substantive decision to refuse the requests under section 15(1)(g). Should the applicant choose to pay the fee for an internal review in any or all of these cases, it will be open to her to make a new application to this Office for a review of the Council’s substantive decision if she is not satisfied with the outcome of any such internal review(s).
Accordingly, this review is concerned solely with whether the Council was justified in charging the applicant a fee in order to carry out an internal review of the decisions it made on each of the applicant’s five FOI requests.
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.
Furthermore, it is important to note that section 13(4) of the FOI Act provides that in deciding whether to grant or refuse a request, any reason that the requester gives for the request shall be disregarded. This means that I cannot have regard to the applicant’s motives for seeking access to the information she requested in each of her five requests, except in so far as those motives reflect what might be regarded as genuine public interest factors in favour of release of the information where the FOI Act requires a consideration of the public interest (not relevant in this case).
Section 27
Section 27(13) provides that a fee shall (my emphasis) be charged in respect of an internal review application. This section of the Act states:
(a) A fee of such amount (if any) as may be prescribed shall be charged by the FOI body concerned under this subsection and paid by the applicant concerned to—
(i) the body in respect of an application under section 21, or
(ii) the Commissioner in respect of an application under section 22.
(b) A fee under this subsection shall be paid at the time of the making of the application concerned and, if it is not so paid, the head concerned or, as the case may be, the Commissioner shall refuse to accept the application, and it shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, not to have been made.
(c) Fees of different amounts may be prescribed under paragraph (a) in respect of different classes of applicant.
These application fees are sometimes referred to as ‘up-front’ fees. Application fees must be paid at the time of the application for internal review. If the fee is not paid, the application must be refused, and it is deemed as not having been made. The prescribed fee is set out in the Freedom of Information Act (Fees)(No.2) Regulations 2014 [S.I. No. 531 of 2014] (the Regulations). Under Regulation 4, a fee of €30 is prescribed for an application for internal review. (A reduced fee of €10 applies for medical card holders).
Under the Regulations, a fee is not payable in respect of an application for internal review where:
a) the record(s) contain only personal information relating to the applicant,
b) the application is in relation to a decision under section 9 or 10 or,
c) the application is in relation to a decision to charge a fee or deposit, or a fee or deposit of a particular amount, under section 27.
The five requests at issue seek non personal information. It is clear they are not for records that contain only personal information relating to the applicant. The applicant believes she should not be charged the upfront fee for the internal review in these cases because, she contends, the decisions were not made in accordance with fair procedures and the decision-maker has a conflict of interest. The applicant considers the fees should be waived as the process lacked independence and impartiality.
The language of the Act is clear that the charging of an upfront fee for an internal review is mandatory and must be paid prior to an FOI body accepting a request for an internal review, irrespective of the applicant’s views about the appropriateness of the fees in her cases. Where the appropriate fee is not paid, the body shall refuse to accept the application, and it is deemed, for the purposes of the FOI Act, not to have been made. While there are specific circumstances, as outlined above where no fee applies, such as requests for personal information, it is clear that none of those circumstances apply in these cases. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the Council was justified in levying a fee for an internal review in each of the five cases. Accordingly, I find that the Council was justified in charging an internal review fee in respect of cases:
• OIC-162477
• OIC-162480
• OIC-162801
• OIC-163799
• OIC-163801
If the applicant wishes to proceed with her requests for internal review, she must pay the relevant fee to the Council. If she does proceed and is unhappy with the Council’s internal review decisions, her normal rights of appeal to this Office will apply.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby affirm the Council’s decision to levy the fee prescribed under section 27(13)(a)(i) of the FOI Act in respect of each of the applicant’s five requests for internal review.
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