Decision
Ms Y and Dublin City Council
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-160747-F0R1J7
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-160747-F0R1J7
Published on
Whether the Council has complied with the requirements of section 10 of the FOI Act in response to an application for a statement of reasons with respect to acts of the Council relating to aspects of the applicant’s tenancy
3 February 2026
It should be noted that the applicant’s original request was in two parts; seeking access to records as well as a statement of reasons under section 10 of the Act. This Office’s review of the applicant’s request for records has already been dealt with in the separate case OIC-160960-S4W4R8, a decision for which is available on our website www.oic.ie .
The applicant in this case is a tenant of the Council and lives in a building complex where the Council owns a number of the properties. I understand that the building complex is not owned by the Council and is managed by an Owners Management Company (OMC), of which the Council is a member, having one vote per property owned at the OMC AGM.
On 29 January 2025, the applicant made a request under Section 10 of the FOI Act for a statement of reasons relating to acts of the Council that had been outlined in a December 2023 letter from the applicant’s legal representative to the Council. On 2 May 2025, the Council answered the applicant, addressing her queries and providing reasons. On 3 June 2025, the applicant requested an internal review of the Council’s original decision. On 10 July 2025, the Council affirmed its original decision. On 21 July 2025, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of the Council’s internal review decision.
During the course of the review, the Council provided submissions to this Office in relation to the statement of reasons requested by the applicant. The applicant was provided with details of those submissions by the Investigating Officer and was invited to make further submissions, which she duly did. While I do not propose to repeat the submissions from both parties in full here, I confirm that I have had regard to them for the purposes of this review.
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 both parties. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
This review is concerned solely with whether the statement of reasons provided by the Council relating to acts of the Council pertaining to aspects of the applicant’s tenancy complies with the requirements of section 10 of the FOI Act.
Section 10 of the FOI Act provides that a person is entitled to a statement of reasons for an act of an FOI body where that person is affected by the act and has a material interest in a matter affected by the act or to which it relates. The statement of reasons must give the reasons for the act and any findings on any material issues of fact made for the purposes of the act.
In her original request for a statement of reasons, the applicant identified four acts or decisions of the Council relating to her tenancy. She asked for:
1. the reasons why the Council, as a member of the OMC, had appointed a named energy company as the apartment complex’s energy provider, thereby preventing her from transferring to another provider;
2. the reasons behind the increase in charges on her energy bills since 2017/2018 and in particular the increase in standing charges between 2018 and 2024;
3. the reasons for the transfer by the OMC, of which the Council is a member, of some of the communal heating system’s running and maintenance costs from the service charge budget to end users, without consulting her; and
4. the reasons why the Council has been imposing an additional heating maintenance charge on her since November 2023 despite her not using the heating since October 2023 and despite the Council having previously removed this charge in 2018.
In its submissions to this Office, the Council addressed each aspect of the applicant’s request for reasons.
Regarding the appointment of the complex’s energy provider, the Council explained that there is only one energy provider catering for the utilities and that all tenants residing in the complex are required to use this system exclusively. The Council stated that, as property owners and members of the OMC, the Council can vote in the AGM. However, the Council explained that it did not appoint the energy provider which, it said, was in place before the Council acquired any of the three units it owns in the complex.
Regarding the increase in the applicant’s energy bills, the Council said that tenants pay for their own utility bills and that this is explained to tenants when a tenancy agreement is signed. The Council went on to say that the increase in the standing charges is a matter for the energy provider and not something over which the Council has any control.
Regarding the transfer of costs from the service charge budget to end users, the Council explained how, prior to the 2019 OMC AGM, a portion of the complex’s heating fee was incorporated into the service charge fee which is paid annually by the Council. According to the Council, a motion was brought to the 2019 AGM of the OMC to reportion the heating fee back to the customer/resident. The Council provided an excerpt from the AGM minutes showing that the Council voted against the proposal, which was nevertheless passed by a majority.
Finally, the Council addressed its reimposition of a €5 heating charge in November 2023. The Council explained that the heating maintenance charge was introduced by it in 2016 to cover the operational costs of heating systems. The Council stated that this charge, which is a standard charge to cover the upkeep and maintenance of the heating systems interface unit, radiators and pipes, is applied to all Council tenant rent accounts. The Council added that this maintenance charge, originally called a “boiler maintenance” charge, was removed by the Council in 2018 after the applicant had disputed the charge due to not having a boiler. The Council said that a “heating maintenance” charge, associated with the maintenance of internal heating equipment, was then imposed on the applicant in November 2023. The Council explained that the term “boiler maintenance” will be removed from now on for all new accounts and that the generic term “Heating Maintenance Charge” will be used in order to facilitate charges for properties which have been upgraded to heat pump systems. The Council stated that the applicant is currently being charged the appropriate level of rent based on her income and that the additional charges are appropriate to the tenancy.
In her submissions to this Office, the applicant said that there is a significant disparity between the reasons given by the Council and the facts.
Regarding the appointment of the complex’s energy provider, the applicant stated that this company was contracted by the OMC, of which the Council is a member, and that there is a contract between the Council, the OMC and the energy provider. She provided evidence to show that the energy provider was appointed by the OMC in 2017, as well as evidence that the Council acquired her apartment in 2009, despite the Council’s statement that the provider was appointed before it owned any property in the complex. The applicant argued that the Council’s statement that it did not appoint the energy provider is not a valid reason to impose all the charges on her. She further argued that she was not made aware of the arrangement prior to accepting the tenancy agreement. The applicant maintained that she is in an exceptional situation, as most Council tenants are not locked into such an arrangement. As such, she said that she is entitled to a statement of reasons and to a statement of findings on any material issues of fact that apply to her individual circumstances.
Regarding the increase in her energy bills, the applicant stated that the OMC sets the rates on the heating and hot water bills and that there is no transparency between the price per unit charged by the energy company and the end unit price set by the OMC or the standing charges.
The applicant argued that she has been given no legitimate or legal reasons for the transfer of costs from the service charge budget to her without her consent, as stipulated by the Multi Unit Development Act 2011. She said that, just because the majority voted in favour at the AGM in 2019 does not dispense with the Council’s responsibility to have asked for consent before any charges were transferred. She argued that she is not the owner or the OMC but the tenant and, despite not being legally bound to the OMC, she is personally and significantly affected by its decisions. She said that the fact that the Council was against any price increases to its tenants in the first place, is the very reason why those charges should not have been transferred to her. She said that, even if the Council has a minority vote on the OMC, this does not mean that the charges belong to her. According to the applicant, most of the apartments in the complex are owner-occupied, which means that the transfer of charges does not affect the owners as their charges are just being transferred from one point to another; however, it does make a big difference to her.
Regarding the reimposition of a €5 heating charge in November 2023, the applicant said that she was not told by the housing officer when she moved into the complex that she was responsible for any extra heating or maintenance charges and was in fact told by the OMC that maintenance of the boiler was its responsibility, as is also outlined in the supplier contract between the OMC, the Council and the energy provider. She said that this charge was previously removed in 2018 because hers is not a standard Council property and she does not have a boiler in the apartment. She said that this charge was reapplied in November 2023 after the heating broke down in October 2023 and that she has not used the heating since, nor has any maintenance been done as it is no longer in use. She said that she does not believe that it is fair or justified to demand charges for a service that she does not have and cannot use. She said that the Council is not taking her individual circumstances, including her health and disability, into consideration.
Additionally, the applicant maintained that the management company charges and the extra rent charges go hand in hand and that she should have been told about them upon moving into the apartment and after the 2019 AGM. She said that both charges are heating maintenance charges for the inside and the outside of the property for a system she does not have. She said that she is basically being charged double maintenance fees by the Council. She also said that these charges are not specified or explicitly written into her tenancy agreement, which is a requirement under the legislation, so that they will be transparent and part of a legally binding agreement between the authority and the tenant.
Section 10 of the Act outlines the right to a statement of reasons for persons affected by an act of an FOI body. In order for this right to exist, therefore, the act or decision in question must be the responsibility of the body concerned.
The Council told this Office that it does not have any authority to appoint the energy provider and that the OMC made this appointment. That the OMC made the appointment is confirmed by emails from the energy provider and by the 2017 OMC meeting minutes, both submitted by the applicant. I accept that, contrary to what it said in its submissions, the Council seems to have been a property owner in the complex at the time of the appointment. However, this does not change the fact that it is the OMC and not the Council that made the appointment. The applicant will also be aware from this Office’s review of her request for records that the Council explained that the energy provider is not a service provider for the Council, that the Council has no dealings with it and that the Council has no involvement in the calculation of energy bills. As such, I am satisfied that the decisions to appoint the complex’s energy provider and to increase the applicant’s energy charges are not acts of the Council, but of the OMC and/or the energy company. I am also satisfied that the same can be said for the 2019 OMC decision to reportion the heating fee back to the customer, which the Council is on record as having opposed. Therefore, I do not consider that the applicant is entitled under the Act to a statement of reasons in relation to these three decisions, although I note that the Council has attempted to provide reasons to the applicant.
With regard to the decision to reimpose a heating maintenance charge in November 2023, I am satisfied that this is a decision of the Council that affects the applicant materially and that she is therefore entitled to a statement of reasons in connection with it. As outlined above, the Council has provided this statement, and this has been communicated to the applicant. The applicant has argued that the Council’s statement is inadequate.
This Office takes the view that a statement of reasons provided pursuant to section 10 of the FOI Act should be intelligible and adequate having regard to the particular circumstances of the case. The statement should be sufficiently clear to enable an applicant to understand without undue difficulty why the FOI body acted as it did. It should identify the criteria relevant to the act and explain how each of the criteria affected the act. However, we do not consider that a statement should necessarily have to contain a detailed clarification of all issues identified by an applicant as relevant to a particular act or decision. Essentially, a statement of reasons should be sufficiently clear to enable an applicant to understand without undue difficulty why the FOI body acted as it did. In my view, the applicant’s submissions do not suggest that the statement of reasons provided does not explain why the charge was reimposed. Rather, they focus on an argument that the decision taken was not fair or justified in her individual circumstances.
As did the Investigator reviewing the applicant’s associated request for records, I acknowledge the convoluted and atypical nature of the arrangement in place in her apartment complex, and I understand that she is frustrated with the reimposition of this charge. Nevertheless, I must remind her that it is not within our remit to consider the appropriateness, or otherwise, of administrative actions taken by public bodies. We have no role in examining the appropriateness or otherwise of the Council’s decision to reimpose the heating maintenance charge. This review is concerned solely with whether the statement of reasons provided adequately explains why the Council acted as it did. The fact that the applicant disagrees with the decision taken and the basis on which it was taken does not negate the fact that the reasons for the Council’s decision to reimpose the charge have now been given. Having carefully considered the matter, I am satisfied that the statement of reasons provided is adequate for the purposes of section 10.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby affirm the Council’s decision. With regard to the first three parts of the applicant’s request, I find that the applicant was not entitled to a statement of reasons. With regard to the fourth part of the applicant’s request, I find that the Council has complied with the provisions of section 10 of the FOI Act and that the statement provided is adequate.
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.
Mary Connery
Investigator