Decision
Mr X and Department of Social Protection
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-149919-P4C5G1
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-149919-P4C5G1
Published on
Whether the Department was justified in refusing access to further copies of the applicant’s Disability Allowance (DA) on the basis that they have already been released (section 15(1)(i))
15 October 2024
On 4 March 2024, the applicant made an FOI request to the Department for access to his DA file (which the Department designated as Part 1) and to correspondence with the Office of the Ombudsman (Part 2).
The Department’s decision of 8 April 2024 part-granted the request. It refused Part 1 under section 15(1)(g) of the FOI Act (frivolous and vexatious). It released the Part 2 records, other than details which it considered were third party personal information (section 37(1)).
The applicant sought an internal review on 24 April 2024. The Department’s internal review decision of 16 May 2024 granted access to four records relevant to Part 1. It refused access to further such records under sections 15(1)(i) (records already released) and 15(1)(g) of the FOI Act. It also refused to release further copies of the applicant’s medical records under section 15(1)(i). It affirmed its decision on Part 2.
On 19 June 2024, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of the Department’s decision. Further to my request for submissions, the Department released the remaining details relevant to Part 2.
I have now completed my review in accordance with section 22(2) of the FOI Act and I have decided to conclude it by way of a formal, binding decision. In carrying out my review, I have had regard to the above exchanges and to correspondence between this Office, the Department and the applicant. I have also taken account of the contents of various records covered by the request, and of the provisions of the FOI Act.
As the applicant is aware from my letters of 20 August and 30 September (to which I received no replies), my review is confined to the sole issue of whether the Department was justified in relying on sections 15(1)(i) and/or (g) of the FOI Act in relation to Part 1 of his request. He is also aware that my reviews in the related Case Nos OIC-146638-V3W8F5 and OIC-147875-B5N6X6 (which also concern the applicant’s requests to the Department for his DA file) will deal with some of the issues raised in the application to this Office. He also knows that we have no role in examining the other issues raised, such as the Department’s treatment of his FOI requests and other matters, its handling of his personal information, the actions of certain of the Department’s staff, etc.
The Department contends that it has already granted access to the applicant’s DA records and that it is justified in refusing to release further copies thereof, further to section 15(1)(i) of the FOI Act. Section 15(1)(i) provides for the discretionary refusal of a request where the request relates to records already released, either to the same or a previous requester where the records are available to the requester concerned.
As I explained to the applicant, the Department refers to his three earlier FOI requests for his DA file, the last of which was dated 25 January 2024. I also explained that the later FOI requests would capture any records created since the Department received the previous request(s) for such records. Therefore, the request the subject of this review would cover any records on the applicant’s DA file that were created since receipt of the request dated 25 January 2024. However, the Department contends that it has released all such records. I referred the applicant here to the records released at internal review stage (which I noted were created between 29 January and 5 March 2024) and to two other records that the Department has said it released, or would release, on foot of another FOI request.
The request at issue in this case would also cover the records released by the Department further to the applicant’s earlier requests. However, I noted to the applicant that he does not argue that such records are no longer available to him, or explain why this may be the case. I noted that, instead, he claims that some of the released records are not legible, and that others have been withheld or could not be found. I told him that it was open to him to take up the matter of illegible records directly with the Department, and also that he had rights under the FOI Act to seek internal and external reviews regarding records that were withheld or could not be located. I referred him also to my reviews in Case Nos. OIC-147875-B5N6X6 and OIC-146638-V3W8F5s, which are examining such issues.
As noted, the applicant did not respond to any of the issues I put to him. In the circumstances, I have no reason to take the view that he disputes the adequacy of the Department’s searches for records created since receipt of his request of 25 January 2024. Neither have I any reason to take the view that the DA records already released by the Department are no longer available to him. In all of the circumstances, I find that the Department is justified in relying on section 15(1)(i) of the FOI Act, on the basis that the request at issue relates to records already released and available to the applicant. It follows that I do not need to consider the Department’s claim under section 15(1)(g) of the FOI Act.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby affirm the Department’s decision on the basis that section 15(1)(i) applies to the request.
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.
Anne Lyons
Investigator