Decision
Mr X and The Central Bank of Ireland
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-163324-X5N2S3
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-163324-X5N2S3
Published on
Whether the Bank was justified in refusing parts 1 and 4 of the applicant’s request pursuant to section 15(1)(b) of the Act on the basis that the applicant’s request was not in compliance with section 12(1)(b) of the FOI Act, and whether the Bank was justified in refusing parts 2 and 3 pursuant to section 15(1)(a) of the Act on the basis that the records sought do not exist or cannot be found
9 February 2026
In a request dated 10 February 2025, the applicant sought access to four categories of records held by the Bank:
1. all personal data held by the Bank;
2. all information relating to the response of the Bank relating to reports of misconduct by two named financial institutions in the past 2 years;
3. a copy of CCTV footage of the applicant’s visit to the Bank; and
4. copies of correspondence relating to the Secretary General of the Department of Finance.
The Bank did not respond to the applicant’s request and on 19 August 2025, the applicant sent a follow up email to the Bank seeking a response to his request. Following engagement with this Office, the Bank issued its internal review decision on the request. Parts 1 and 4 of the request were refused pursuant to section 15(1)(b) of the FOI Act on the ground that those parts did not comply with section 12(1)(b) of the FOI Act. Parts 2 and 3 of the request were refused pursuant to section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act on the basis that the records sought do not exist or cannot be found. On 7 October 2025, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of the Bank’s decision.
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 submissions made by the Bank in support of its decision. The applicant elected not to make any submissions to this Office. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
This review is concerned solely with whether the Bank was justified in refusing parts 1 and 4 of the applicant’s request pursuant to section 15(1)(b) of the Act on the basis that the applicant’s request was not in compliance with section 12(1)(b) of the FOI Act, and in refusing parts 2 and 3 pursuant to section 15(1)(a) of the Act.
Before I engage in the substantive matters pertinent to this review, I wish to address the somewhat unusual manner in which this application comes before this Office for review.
In its submissions to this Office, the Bank said that the applicant’s communication with it – which it said span a number of years - have been difficult and disruptive in nature and that following security concerns, a decision was taken by the Bank to direct all emails sent by the applicant to a separate email server. Following correspondence this Office received from the applicant, we sought to clarify the Bank’s failure to respond to the applicant’s request. The Bank outlined the reasons set out above for its failure to respond to the applicant. The Bank subsequently agreed to treat the applicant’s request as having been refused and proceeded to issue its internal review decision. In its submissions to this Office, the Bank accepted that individuals have a statutory right to request records under the FOI Act and said that in order to ensure that a deemed refusal does not occur again in such a manner, it has implemented enhanced monitoring measures where the Bank has deemed it necessary and appropriate to redivert correspondence.
The circumstances in which this review arises are unsatisfactory, particularly in a case such as this where - due to the time that elapsed between the request being made and processed by the Bank - records may have been deleted in line with its data retention policy. The Bank is under a statutory obligation to respond to and address FOI requests made to it within the timelines set out in the Act and it is crucial, going forward, that the steps which it submitted have now been implemented, enable the Bank to identify and respond to future such requests in accordance with its statutory obligations.
Section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act provides for the refusal of a request where the records sought do not exist or cannot be found after all reasonable steps to ascertain their whereabouts have been taken. My role in a case such as this is to review the decision of the FOI body and to decide whether that decision was justified. This means that I must have regard to the evidence available to the decision maker and the reasoning used by the decision maker in arriving at their decision and I must assess the adequacy of the searches conducted by the FOI body in looking for relevant records. The evidence in “search” cases generally consists of the steps actually taken to search for the records along with miscellaneous and other information about the record management practices of the FOI body, insofar as those practices relate to the records in question.
In its submissions to this Office, the Bank said that the records sought in parts 2 and 3 of the applicant’s request do not exist and were therefore refused pursuant to section 15(1)(a) of the Act. In respect of part 2 of the request, the Bank said it referred the request to two separate divisions within the Bank which are charged with supervision of the institutions named in the applicant’s request. It provided submissions on the nature of its supervisory role in respect of subsidiaries of the two financial institutions cited in the request, and the two divisions it searched within the Bank on foot of his request. It also provided details of the potential data sources it searched for records. The Bank said both divisions confirmed that no records exist in relation to reports of misconduct in respect of either of the named firms.
In respect of part 3 of the applicant’s request, the Bank said that part was referred to the division of the Bank responsible for the management of the security arrangements for the Bank’s staff and premises, including the oversight of CCTV within the Bank. It said its security division confirmed that the applicant attended the Central Bank’s premises on 29 January 2025. While it accepted that CCTV of the visit would have existed at the time the applicant made his request on 10 February 2025, due to the delay on the part of the Bank addressing the applicant’s request, it said that the footage had been deleted in line with its 60-day retention policy by the time it made enquiries on foot of the applicant’s request in July 2025. While it is most unsatisfactory that the Bank allowed such a significant period of time to elapse between the making of the applicant’s request and it carrying out its searches on foot of same, I am satisfied that on foot of the Bank’s submissions, CCTV footage of the applicant’s visit on 29 January 2025, which may have previously existed, no longer exists.
Having reviewed the Bank’s submissions and the explanations provided therein, I am satisfied that the Bank was justified in concluding that the records sought at parts 2 and 3 of the applicant’s request do not exist and that it was justified in its decision to refuse those parts under section 15(1)(a) of the Act.
Section 15(1)(b) of the FOI Act allows an FOI body to refuse to grant a request if it considers that the request does not comply with section 12(1)(b), which requires that a request contain sufficient particulars in relation to the information sought to enable the record to be identified by the taking of reasonable steps. Section 15(1)(b) is subject to section 15(4) of the Act, which provides that a body cannot refuse a request under section 15(1)(b) unless it has first assisted or offered to assist the requester to amend the request so that it would no longer fall to be refused under section 15(1)(b).
The FOI Act is silent on the precise nature or level of the assistance to be offered under section 15(4). This Office takes the view that before a body can refuse a request under section 15(1)(b), the body must first have provided reasonable assistance to the requester in amending the request, or have offered to provide assistance in cases where the requester is not willing to amend the original request, in order to comply with the requirements of section 15(4). On the question of what constitutes reasonable assistance, this Office considers that the level or nature of the assistance to be provided can vary significantly from case to case and will depend on the willingness of the parties to engage in meaningful discussion on what might be acceptable in the circumstances.
In its submissions to this Office, the Bank provided copies of its correspondence with the applicant on the matter. It is necessary to summarise certain of that correspondence as it illustrates the assistance provided to the applicant by the Bank. On 21 August 2025, the Bank sought clarification from the applicant in respect of three parts of his request:
• Part 1: The Bank sought further detail on the nature of the applicant’s personal data which it may hold. By way of example, the Bank queried what areas of the Bank may hold his personal data, on what subject matter, and during what timeframe. The Bank further noted that it is a large organisation and that this information would assist in identifying where his personal data may be held.
• Part 3: The Bank sought the date and time for which the applicant sought CCTV records. It noted that while the applicant referenced a phone call in his request, the FOI Officer did not have any details of same.
• Part 4: The Bank asked the applicant to advise on what exact records he was seeking to access. Some items the Bank suggested he consider included: identifying the subject matter of the correspondence he was seeking, the areas of the Central Bank such correspondence may be with, and the relevant timeframe.
In response to the Bank’s queries, the applicant stated that the information the Bank was requesting had already been provided to the Bank’s complaints department. He queried whether the complaints division could provide the FOI officer with the information which he claimed to have furnished. The applicant was also critical of the Bank noting that it was a“large well resourced organization… [and] should not refer to its size as a reason for its inability to function”.
Following further correspondence between the Bank and the applicant, on 29 August 2025, the Bank stated that it had“clarified details around the CCTV requested” however,“further specifics on the other parts of [his] request remain unclear” . Nevertheless, the Bank said it would proceed with processing the applicant’s FOI request. The applicant responded on the same date querying whether the complaints department had been contacted for the correspondence. The applicant concluded in stating that he did“… not want to proceed while things are still unclear…” . This email was followed by further correspondence from the applicant to the complaints unit. The applicant stated that“…you have ignored 17 emails and 7 phone calls. No response whatsoever. Foi say things are unclear. Can you please respond in accordance with your own commitments to the public?”.
In its submissions to this Office, the Bank rejected the assertion that there has been any telephone contact between the complaints unit and the applicant and noted that the complaints unit does not have an assigned telephone line or dedicated phone number. The Bank further submitted that the decision maker informed the applicant that the Bank had reviewed all correspondence received by it from the applicant since the date of the request dated 10 February 2025 and was satisfied that such correspondence does not provide clarification in respect of parts 1 and 4 of his request. The Bank cited the applicant’s failure to engage constructively with it in clarifying his request, noting that the applicant repeatedly responded to correspondence from the FOI unit indicating that the details sought were with the Bank’s complaints department.
In respect of part 1 of the applicant’s request, the Bank submitted that it was not entirely clear if the applicant was seeking his own personal data, but in the absence of any clarification, it proceeded on that understanding. The Bank noted that the FOI Unit had no information on the potential business areas within the Bank with whom the applicant had been engaging in order to determine where records potentially responsive to his request would be held. The Bank submitted that it has a complex organisational structure, with over 50 divisions in operation, and it would not be able to conduct searches without clarification on this point. The Applicant also provided no timeframe for the records being sought under this part of the request.
In respect of part 4 of his request, the Bank submitted that the FOI Unit requested clarification on the nature of correspondence being sought and what areas of the Bank may hold such correspondence. The Bank noted that the Secretary General of the Department of Finance is also a member of the Central Bank Commission, and in the absence of further clarification from the applicant, it was assessed that the volume of records which could potentially be responsive relating to this part of the request could be very extensive. Similar to part 1 of his request, the applicant provided no timeframe for the records being sought under this part of the request.
The taking of reasonable steps in section 12(1)(b) is not concerned with the steps that would need to be taken by the FOI body to search for and locate the record sought. Rather, it is concerned solely with an FOI body’s ability to identify the record sought. I am satisfied having regard to the scope of parts 1 and 4 of the applicant’s request and the submissions made by the Bank that parts 1 and 4 of the applicant’s request do not comply with section 12(1)(b) of the FOI Act. They do not, in my view, contain sufficient particulars in relation to the information sought to enable the records sought to be identified by the taking of reasonable steps.
That being so, section 15(4) of the Act, states that a body cannot refuse a request under section 15(1)(b) unless it has first assisted or offered to assist the requester to amend the request so that it would no longer fall to be refused under section 15(1)(b). I am satisfied - having reviewed the correspondence referenced by the Bank – that it provided sufficient opportunity for the applicant to provide the clarification sought by the Bank prior to it issuing its internal review decision. Leaving aside the question of whether or not the applicant provided the details sought to the Bank’s complaints department as opposed to its FOI Unit, it is clear from the correspondence provided by the Bank that the applicant was aware that the FOI Unit had not received the responses to their suggested amendments and it accordingly informed the applicant that it would subsequently proceed to make its decision in the absence of the clarification sought. It is the responsibility of the applicant to engage with the Bank with a view to formulating a request that complies with the provisions of the FOI Act. The applicant’s responses to the Bank’s suggestions do not a engage with the substance of those suggestions. Accordingly, parts 1 and 4 of the applicant’s request stood to be refused pursuant to section 15(1)(b) of the Act.
I therefore affirm the Banks decision insofar as it relates to parts 1 and 4 of the applicant’s request.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby affirm the Central Bank’s decision insofar as it relates to each part of the applicant’s request. I find that the Bank was justified in refusing parts 1 and 4 of the applicant’s request pursuant to section 15(1)(b) of the Act and refusing parts 2 and 3 of the applicant’s request pursuant to section 15(1)(a) of the Act.
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.
Stephen Rafferty
Senior Investigator