Decision
Ms. Y & Dublin City Council (the Council)
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-160960-S4W4R8
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-160960-S4W4R8
Published on
Whether the Council was justified in refusing the applicant access to meter readings for her home under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act on the ground that it does not hold a copy of those readings
12 November 2025
The applicant in this case is a tenant of Dublin City Council and lives in a building complex where the Council owns a number of the properties. I understand that the building is not owned by the Council and is managed by a management company.
On 29 January 2025, the applicant wrote to the Council seeking a statement of reasons for why she is charged maintenance fees by the Council and requesting a printout of all the hot water and heating meter readings for her apartment from August 2017 to the date of her request. The applicant also asked the Council to arrange access for her to view the meters which, she maintained, are located in a plant room in her building. This review is concerned with the applicant’s request for a printout of meter readings. The statement of reasons sought by the applicant under section 10 of the FOI Act is the subject of a separate review by this Office.
On 2 May 2025, the Council wrote to the applicant about the standing charges for heating in the building. The Council also stated that it had contacted the property agents and the energy company in relation to her request to view the meters and that it had been told that all meters were in the apartments and that none were in the plant room. The Council provided the applicant with a copy of its email exchange with the energy company in the matter. On 3 June 2025, the applicant requested an internal review of the Council’s original decision, saying that she did not get the records she requested. On 10 July 2025, the Council affirmed its original decision, stating that it had released all records pertaining to the applicant’s FOI request and that it had exhausted all available avenues to assist the applicant with the issues raised by her. On 21 July 2025, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of the Council’s decision. She said that she did not get a copy of the meter readings or any of the records she requested.
During the course of this review, the Investigating Officer provided the applicant with details of the Council’s submissions explaining why it does not hold a copy of the meter reading sought by the applicant. The applicant was invited to make submissions of her own, which she duly did.
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, including the submissions made by the Council and the applicant. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
I understand that the matters raised by the applicant have been the subject of various correspondence and requests to the Council. The Council’s position is that it has released all relevant records in its possession and that it holds no further relevant records. This is, in essence, a refusal, pursuant to section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, to provide further relevant records on the ground that no further relevant records exist. While the applicant raised various issues in her FOI request dated 29 January 2025, principally around fees and charges relating to her hot water and heating bills, the only records sought in her request are a printout of all meter readings for her apartment since August 2017.
Accordingly, this review is concerned solely with whether the Council was justified in refusing to access to the printout of meter readings sought by the applicant under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, on the basis that the Council does not have these records.
Before I address the substantive issues, I would like to make some preliminary comments.
The applicant raised a number of issues and concerns about charges in relation to heating and hot water bills and a maintenance fee charged by the Council. As noted above, the applicant also asked the Council to arrange access for her to view the meters which she contends are located in a plant room in her building. Firstly, our role in this case is confined to reviewing the Council’s decision on access to the records sought by the applicant in her FOI request. We have no role in facilitating the applicant’s request to view meters or access the plant room.
Secondly, 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.
Thirdly, while the purpose of the Act is to enable members of the public to obtain access to information held by public bodies, the mechanism for doing so is by accessing records held by those bodies. In other words, a person wishing to obtain information from a public body must make a request for records that contain the information sought. Requests for information or for answers to questions, as opposed to requests for records, are not valid requests under the Act, except to the extent that a request for information or for an answer to a question can reasonably be inferred to be a request for a record containing the information or answer sought. Apart from the provision under section 17(4) about extracting information from electronic records, which does not apply in this case, the Act does not require FOI bodies to create records in order to grant a request.
Finally, while I can appreciate the importance the applicant attaches to obtaining the answers she is seeking, section 13(4) provides that, subject to the Act, in deciding whether to grant or refuse an FOI request, any reason that the requester gives for the request and any belief or opinion of the FOI body as to the reasons for the request shall be disregarded. Thus, while certain provisions of the Act implicitly render the motive of the requester relevant, as a general rule, the actual or perceived reasons for a request must be disregarded in deciding whether to grant or refuse an access request under the FOI Act.
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. Our 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 to the reasoning used by the decision maker in arriving at their decision and also 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.
As noted above, details of the Council’s submissions were provided to the applicant. While I do not intend to repeat those details in full here, I confirm that I have had regard to them, and to the submissions made by the applicant, for the purpose of this review.
In its submissions to this Office, the Council explained that the applicant’s apartment is one of a number of properties in the apartment building block which is required to use the common heating system exclusively. The Council said that there is one energy provider to cater for the gas utilities in the overall complex. The Council said that tenants receive bills directly and that the Council has no involvement in the calculation of these bills. According to the Council, the designated energy company is not a service provider for the Council and the Council has no dealings with this company.
The Council stated that it does not have any meter readings for any private apartment blocks. The Council stated that it made efforts to locate and obtain the requested meter readings by contacting the designated energy company. The Council said that the energy company responded to say that there are no meters in the plant room and that meters are located in each apartment. The Council stated that it sent a second email to the energy company requesting to be given access to the plant room, but that the company responded to say that, due to health and safety reasons, no member of the public would be permitted to enter the boiler room. The Council attached these two emails with its submissions.
The Council said that it also contacted the managing agent for the buildings to request copies of the meter readings from the plant room and to ask if access could be permitted to the plant room. The Council stated that the agent responded to say that the energy company should be contacted as it is the manager of the communal heating system. The Council provided a copy of this email in which the management agent confirms that the energy company’s responsibility extends to repairs, servicing, readings and billing.
According to the Council, the records requested by the applicant are not maintained by the Council. The Council added that the records therefore do not exist within the Council and never existed within the Council, and that that they cannot be found by the Council.
In her response to the Council’s submissions, the applicant explained that she wants access to the plant room in order to view the technology which she understands is a handheld device to take readings from a computer in place in the plant room where usage is logged and that allows the energy company to acquire remote meter readings. She provided evidence that the management agent had advised her to raise any concerns with her landlord, the Council. She also provided an email from the energy company informing her that the meters are the responsibility of her landlord and that, as such, any concerns should be raised with the Council. She stated that each of the parties involved keeps referring her to the other.
While I understand the frustration experienced by the applicant in this situation and appreciate the complex nature of the arrangement in place, having regard to the information before this Office, I am satisfied that the Council does not hold a copy of the meter readings sought by the applicant and that any such records would be held by the energy company that bills tenants directly.
For the reasons set out above, I find that the Council was justified in refusing access to a printout of meter readings under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act on the basis that it does not hold the records sought.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby affirm the Council’s decision to refuse access to a printout of meter readings under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI 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.
____________________
Richard Crowley
Investigator