Decision
Company A and Tailte Éireann
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-151060-K5R2W4
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-151060-K5R2W4
Published on
Whether Tailte Éireann complied with the requirements of section 10 of the FOI Act in relation to an application for a statement of reasons for acts of the FOI body in the context of a valuation process
28 March 2025
In correspondence dated 3 May 2024, the applicant, though its solicitors, sought a statement of reasons under section 10 of the FOI Act. By way of background, the applicant is a healthcare service provider. References to the applicant in this decision include references to its solicitors, who acted on its behalf throughout the FOI process.
In its application for a statement of reasons, the applicant referred to a particular property. It said that its agent submitted representations to Tailte Éireann’s Revision Manager in April 2023 whereby it submitted that the property in question should not be “rateable”. The applicant said that it was subsequently provided with a document entitled “Revision Reps Report” which disclosed no material consideration of its representations nor the reason for the inclusion of the property in the valuation list. The applicant sought a statement in writing, under section 10, setting out the Revision Manager’s reasons for including the property in the valuation list and for not upholding the representations made. It also requested any findings on any material issues of fact made by the Revision Manager for the purposes of said decisions.
On 4 June 2024, Tailte Éireann provided the applicant with a statement of reasons. The statement was described as setting out the reasons for the “decision to uphold the valuation set out in the proposed valuation certificate having considered the representation made on behalf of the occupier”.
On 10 June 2024, the applicant sought an internal review of the decision made by the FOI body. It first distinguished between the statement it sought and that provided by Tailte Éireann. It said that it had requested the reasons for including the property in the valuation list and that it did not request a reason for the decision to uphold the valuation set out in the relevant certificate. It said that the statement provided does not provide any reason whatsoever for the decision to include the property in the valuation list or for not upholding its representations. With reference to those representations, it said that its position is that the property is not rateable pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of Schedule 4 of the Valuation Act 2001 (the Valuation Act) and should not be included in the valuation list. The applicant also said that the statement does not include any findings on material issues of fact.
In a decision dated 2 July 2024, Tailte Éireann affirmed its original decision. It said that while the wording on the statement issued differed from the wording of the application, the statement itself is correct. It said that the statement clearly lays out the reason for the inclusion of the property on the list (that it is not exempt under Schedule 4 of the Valuation Acts) and also that the representations made by the applicant were considered in full. On 7 August 2024, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of Tailte Éireann’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 applicant. I have also considered the statement of reasons provided by the FOI body. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
This review is concerned solely with the question of whether Tailte Éireann complied with the provisions of section 10 of the FOI Act in response to the application for a statement of reasons for acts connected with the property in question and the valuation process.
During the course of the review, and in line with our procedures, I sought focused submissions from Tailte Éireann. I asked the FOI body to make submissions in support of the statement of reasons provided, having regard to relevant guidance. I also sought background information in respect of the application and information about the “Revision Reps Report” referenced by the applicant. I referenced submissions made by the applicant and sought Tailte Éireann’s response to same. Tailte Éireann did not provide submissions within the relevant timeframe. A reminder email was issued and I placed a phone call to the FOI body. The FOI liaison officer confirmed that my correspondence had been received and forwarded internally. I provided a final deadline after which I confirmed that I would progress the review without further reference to the organisation. No submissions or further communications were received.
Focused submissions are a final opportunity for FOI bodies to justify their decision-making. In light of Tailte Éireann’s lack of engagement, I am confined to considering the contents of the original and internal review decisions which issued. As Tailte Éireann is no doubt aware, the Central Policy Unit of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform has published, pursuant to section 48(1) of the Act, a Code of Practice on FOI for public bodies (see www.foi.gov.ie). Under section 48(3) of the Act, FOI bodies are required to have regard to that Code in the performance of their functions under the Act. Section 9 of the Code of Practice concerns engagement with this Office and notes that “strong communications and positive and constructive engagement between public bodies … and the OIC is absolutely essential to enable FOI to work effectively”. The manner in which Tailte Éireann engaged with this Office during the current review falls short of expected standards. I expect the FOI body to take measures to ensure that it has regard to the Code of Practice when processing future FOI requests and when dealing with this Office.
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. Section 10(5) provides that a person has a material interest in a matter affected by an act of an FOI body or to which such an act relates if the consequence or effect of the act may be to confer a benefit on, or withhold a benefit from, the person without also conferring the benefit on or withholding it from persons in general or a class of persons which is of significant size having regard to all the circumstances and of which the person is a member.
Section 10(13) defines “benefit” in relation to a person as including: (a) any advantage to the person, (b) in respect of an act of an FOI body done at the request of the person, any consequence or effect thereof relating to the person, and (c) the avoidance of a loss, liability, penalty, forfeiture, punishment or other disadvantage affecting the person. 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.
The Commissioner takes the view that a statement of reasons 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, the Commissioner does 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.
For the avoidance of doubt, the Commissioner takes the view that there is nothing to prevent a company from making an application under section 10.
Submissions
In its application to this Office, the applicant again distinguished between its request for the reasons for including the relevant property in the valuation list and Tailte Éireann’s stated decision to uphold the valuation set out in the valuation certificate. It said that the distinction is important because its concern, as articulated in its representations, related to the inclusion of the property in the valuation list and not to the valuation applied to the property. It said that the statement provided by the FOI body set out what the Revision Manager’s decision was but did not provide any reason for the decision to include the property in the valuation list or for not upholding the representations it made. The applicant also said that the decision did not include any findings on material issues of fact.
The applicant referenced submissions made in its initial application to Tailte Éireann and its request for an internal review. It said that guidance has been provided by the Superior Courts in relation to the duty to give reasons in valuation matters. It referred to a number of decisions, including a decision of the High Court inLyons v Commissioner of Valuation [2024] IEHC 223, where the Court held that a relatively stringent approach should be adopted in valuation cases when considering if a decision is adequately reasoned. The applicant also referenced comments made by Chief Justice Clarke in the Supreme Court decision inConnelly v An Bord Pleanála [2021] 2 IR 752. While I do not propose to repeat the paragraph in question, I note that it concerned the requirement that reasons be capable of being determined with some degree of precision. Its position is that the principles set out in referenced decisions of the Courts are relevant and applicable to this review which concerns the contents of the statement of reasons provided by Tailte Éireann.
In further submissions made to this Office, the applicant said that it is accepted by Tailte Éireann that the acts of the FOI body in respect of which it requested a statement of reasons are “acts” for the purposes of section 10. In respect of the adequacy of the statement of reasons provided, the applicant referenced previous statements made by the Commissioner. It noted that while the Commissioner does not consider that a statement should necessarily have to contain a detailed clarification of all issues identified by the applicant as relevant to a particular act or decision, the Commissioner has held that 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.
The applicant said that it has no idea why the FOI body made the decision to include the property concerned in the valuation list and why it did not uphold the representations made. It said that, in particular, it does not know what material findings of fact were made by the FOI body in reaching that decision. It said that Tailte Éireann has made no attempt to explain why it acted as it did.
Analysis
Before commencing my analysis, I believe it would be useful to consider Tailte Éireann’s role in property valuation and the relevant provisions of the Valuation Act. According to its website, valuation is the core business of Tailte Éireann and provides stakeholders with accurate, up-to-date valuations of commercial and industrial properties. These valuations are described as integral to the business rating system in Ireland and form the basis for a very significant element of local government revenue each year. The Valuation Act is described as an act to revise the law relating to the valuation of properties for the purposes of the making of rates in relation to them and to make new provisions in relation to the categories of properties in respect of which rates may not be made.
Section 13 of the Valuation Act provides that the Commissioner of Valuation shall provide for the determination of the value of all relevant properties (other than relevant properties specified in Schedule 4) in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Schedule 3 outlines categories of relevant property while Schedule 4 outlines categories of relevant property which are not rateable. The applicant’s position is that the property in question is not rateable pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of Schedule 4 and should therefore not be included in the valuation list. Paragraph 14(b) concerns any land, building or part of a building occupied for the purpose of caring for elderly, handicapped or disabled persons by a body, being a body the expenses incurred by which in carrying on an activity as aforesaid are defrayed wholly or mainly out of moneys provide by the Exchequer.
At the outset, I note that the FOI body has not disputed the applicant’s entitlement to a statement of reasons. In its application, the applicant effectively referenced two acts of the FOI body. The first is the decision of Tailte Éireann to include the property in question in the valuation list. The second is the decision of Tailte Éireann not to uphold the specific representations made on behalf of the applicant. The statement of reasons provided by the FOI body referenced both matters. Accordingly, I am satisfied that Tailte Éireann accepts that the applicant is entitled to a statement of reasons in respect of the relevant acts.
The substantive issue to be addressed in this case concerns the adequacy of the statement of reasons provided by Tailte Éireann. I have carefully considered the content of same. In sum, the FOI body said that it is the Revision Manager’s opinion that the property in question is relevant property specified in Schedule 3 and is not relevant property not rateable as specified in Schedule 4. It said that the property was therefore correctly entered in the valuation list. It said that the representations submitted were considered in full.
As stated above, 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 the current case, an adequate statement, for the purposes of compliance with section 10, would allow the applicant to understand why Tailte Éireann decided that the property in question is rateable. While the FOI body referenced the relevant Schedules of the Valuation Act, it is not clear to me why the property was determined to be a relevant property as specified in Schedule 3, as opposed to a non-rateable property as specified in Schedule 4. As noted, the applicant’s position is that the property falls within a specific category listed in Schedule 4. It is not clear to me why the FOI body determined that it does not.
In my request for focused submissions, the above was brought to Tailte Éireann’s attention and it was asked to explain why it believes the statement provided adequately outlines the reasons for this act. As noted, no response was provided. In my view, the explanation provided by the FOI body is not adequate; it is not sufficiently clear why Tailte Éireann determined that the property in question falls within the scope of Schedule 3 rather than Schedule 4. Nor is it clear why the position of the applicant in respect of paragraph 14(b) of Schedule 4 was not accepted. An adequate statement should contain the reasons for the FOI body’s decision and any findings on any material issues of fact made for the purposes of the decision.
In light of the above, and the lack of submissions made by Tailte Éireann, I am not satisfied that the FOI body complied with the provisions of section 10 of the FOI Act in response to the application for a statement of reasons for acts concerning the property in question and the valuation process. I annul the decision and direct the FOI body to issue a revised statement to the applicant, taking into account the findings outlined above. The revised statement should be sufficiently clear to enable the applicant to understand without undue difficulty why the FOI body determined that the property in question falls within Schedule 3 of the Valuation Act and why it did not accept arguments that the property falls within the scope of paragraph 14(b) of Schedule 4. The revised statement should also contain any relevant findings of material issues of fact.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby annul Tailte Éireann’s decision in respect of the application for a statement of reasons for acts connected with a particular property and the valuation process on the basis that it did not comply with the provisions of section 10. I direct the FOI body to issue a revised statement, taking into account the findings of this decision.
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.
Alison Connolly
Investigator