Decision
Mr Liam Dunne & Office of the Revenue Commissioners
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-159101-G5X7G8
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-159101-G5X7G8
Published on
Whether Revenue was justified, under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, in refusing access to further records relating to the applicant’s VRT appeal
30 October 2025
The background to this case concerns the calculation of Vehicle Registration Tax (VRT) for a vehicle the applicant imported to the State. The following is my understanding, from Revenue’s submissions, of the process involved in calculating VRT. Certain vehicles are assigned permanent statistical codes while others are not. When a permanent statistical code has been assigned, the taxpayer can calculate the VRT charge on Revenue’s VRT calculator. In cases where a vehicle has not been assigned a permanent statistical code, the vehicle is not on the VRT calculator, and Revenue may employ an independent consultant to complete a desktop valuation. The valuer returns an Open Market Selling Price (OMSP) and determines the CO2 emissions of the vehicle, which provide the rate of VRT applying to the vehicle.
As I understand it, the vehicle imported by the applicant was not assigned a permanent statistical code, which meant that his VRT charge was not calculated using the VRT calculator but via a consultant valuation. The applicant appealed the original VRT charged by Revenue and Revenue determined that there had been a drop in the vehicle’s OMSP since its registration, which led to a lower rate of VRT. In light of this, Revenue offered the applicant a refund.
On 18 March 2025, the applicant requested access to all records held by Revenue relating directly or indirectly to his VRT appeal. The applicant stated that this request specifically included, but was not limited to the following:
1. All emails, correspondence, letters, memos, notes, or communications (internal and external) related to or referencing his appeal.
2. All minutes, notes, or records from meetings, telephone conversations, or discussions relating to his appeal, including internal deliberations, decisions, or considerations.
3. All administrative documents, forms, and records associated with processing, reviewing, or managing his appeal.
4. All drafts, preliminary reports, or working documents relating to his appeal, including any commentary or annotations.
5. All records of any legal advice sought or obtained regarding his appeal, noting clearly if any exemption based on legal professional privilege is claimed, specifying precisely what is redacted, why it is redacted, and under which statutory provision of the FOI Act 2014 it is being withheld.
6. All internal documentation, notes, or communications relating to Revenue’s initial settlement offer and subsequent valuation contradictions.
7. All records, guidance notes, policies, or documented procedures regarding the assignment and removal of Statistical Codes for VRT purposes, as they relate directly or indirectly to his case.
On 23 April 2025, Revenue issued a decision saying it had located 87 relevant records, 71 of which it released in full and 16 of which it decided to part release, with redactions made under sections 29(1) and 37(1) of the Act. On 30 April 2025, the applicant sought an internal review of Revenue’s decision. He contested the redactions made by Revenue and maintained that there is an absence of documentation explaining the VRT refund offered to him by Revenue. On 19 May 2025, Revenue affirmed its original decision and referred to a letter it had issued to the applicant which in its view explained the basis for the VRT refund. On 20 May 2025, the applicant applied to this Office for review of Revenue’s decision.
On 18 June 2025, Revenue informed the applicant that it had decided to vary its decision in relation to the redactions made, and that it was now releasing all 87 records to him in full. Revenue subsequently released a further four records of meeting notes with third party information redacted under section 37(1) of the Act. The applicant did not contest these redactions. Following receipt of this Office’s request for submissions, Revenue released a further 27 records which had been found during further searches. Revenue released a further record to the applicant following further enquiries by this Office and directed the applicant to information available on its website about calculating VRT.
The applicant made a number of submissions during the course of this review and was provided with details of Revenue’s submissions in which it outlined the searches it had conducted and its reasons for concluding that no further relevant records exist or can be found. On foot of submissions from the applicant, the Investigating Officer put a number of further questions to Revenue, the responses to which were provided to the applicant and are outlined below.
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 Revenue and by the applicant. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
This review is solely concerned with whether Revenue was justified in refusing access, under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, to further records sought by the applicant relating to his VRT appeal.
Before I address the substantive issues arising, I would like to make some preliminary comments.
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. Nevertheless, I appreciate the applicant’s frustration at the manner in which Revenue drip-fed him records at various stages of this Office’s review. I note that Revenue itself has acknowledged its shortcomings and has apologised to the applicant for how it handled his request. I would expect Revenue to learn from those shortcomings and to ensure that similar failings are not repeated.
It is also important to note that a review by this Office is considered to be “de novo”, which means that in this case, it is based on the circumstances and the law as they pertain at the time of the decision and is not confined to the basis upon which the FOI body reached its original decision. While Revenue decided to release the information it had refused under sections 29 and 37 of the Act during the course of this review, the applicant contends that Revenue’s refusal under these sections of the Act was blatantly unwarranted and has argued that this Office should examine Revenue’s original decisions in this regard. Having considered the applicant’s arguments and the “de novo” nature of this review, I am satisfied that it is not necessary for me to examine Revenue’s initial refusal of the information it refused under sections 29 and 37 in circumstances where Revenue has now released the relevant records in full.
Finally, in his submissions, the applicant stated that FOI bodies are obliged to provide reasons for acts affecting the requester. The applicant referenced section 11(7) of the Act; however, it is section 10 of the FOI Act that deals with the right of a person to be given a statement of reasons where they are affected by an act of an FOI body. Nevertheless, I note that in his original request, the applicant did not ask for a statement of reasons under section 10 of the Act. It is open to the applicant to make an application to Revenue under section 10 of the Act if he so wishes.
Section 15(1)(a)
Section 15(1)(a) of the 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. The role of this Office 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 his/her 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. It is important to note that the FOI Act is concerned with access to records that a public body holds as opposed to records that a requester considers ought to exist.
As noted above, Revenue provided this Office with details of the searches that it undertook to locate relevant records, details of which were provided to the applicant. The applicant also made a number of submissions in support of his view that further records ought to exist. 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.
In its initial submissions to this Office, Revenue said that following a further review of the redactions it had applied in its original decision, the decision maker decided to release all the scheduled records and issued a follow up decision letter to the applicant on 18 June 2025. Revenue said, at this stage, that the 87 records as scheduled in its original decision were released in full to the applicant. Revenue said that the applicant emailed the decision maker requesting confirmation in relation to the searches conducted and the decision maker contacted the record holders and asked for further searches to be carried out to ensure that all relevant material was located. Following this further search, Revenue said that an additional four records were located and part released to the applicant with third party information redacted under s.37(1) of the FOI Act.
Revenue said that the original searches were conducted in the following systems, files and drives:
• Revenue’s secure email system - Integrated contacts (IC) system using the applicant’s PPS number.
• Revenue’s file management system, NASC
• Revenue’s Case Management System (RCM)
• The National Vehicle Registration Tax Service (NVRTS) branch folder using the applicant’s PPS number.
• The Revenue mail of Appeal Officers of the NVRTS using the applicant’s PPS number.
Revenue said that these searches returned 91 records, of which 87 were now released in full and 4 were part released with third party redactions under s.37(1) of the FOI Act.
Revenue said that, following receipt of the request for submissions from this Office, further searches were conducted for records that came within the scope of the applicant’s request. An additional 27 records were located which were released to the applicant. Revenue said that this omission was an oversight and is very much regretted. It said that the reason why these additional records were not identified at the original decision-making stage was that the original searches used the applicant’s PPS no. only. In conducting the additional searches, the record holders searched using the following identifiers/search terms:
• The applicant’s PPS Number,
• The current registration of his car,
• The previous (UK) registration of the car and the VIN number of the car,
• The applicant’s email address,
• The applicant’s mobile number, and
• The applicant’s name.
Revenue said that the additional searches were carried out in Revenue’s Integrated Contacts (IC) system, on Revenue’s internal document management system NASC and in Revenue’s Case Management system, RCM. It said that the searches were conducted across the entire systems using the above identifiers.
Revenue said that the 27 additional records that were located include one record titled Appeals Worksheet, records of emails between Revenue and the applicant found in Revenue’s internal Integrated Contacts (IC) email system, internal mails on the case, emails with third parties relevant to the case, and 1 RCM record. It said that the Appeals Worksheet record shows how the specific VRT refund figure was reached. Revenue said that the reason that this record was not originally located was because it was stored under the identifier of the registration of the applicant’s car. It said that the original searches were conducted using the applicant’s PPSN only. Revenue said that this oversight is very much regretted, and that Revenue would like to apologise to both the applicant and this Office for this omission. Revenue also said that the RCM record located is the title headings documents of the applicant’s TAC Tax Appeals Commission Appeal case in RCM.
Revenue stated in its submissions that it was now satisfied that no further relevant records exist. Revenue said that due to the record management systems in place, there was no indication that further records existed at some stage but no longer exist. It said that its system-wide searches had resulted in no records being returned as misfiled, adding that NVRTS does not hold paper files. Revenue said that, as its record retention schedule stipulates that VRT returns and appeals be retained for ten years, no relevant records would have been destroyed. Further, Revenue stated that no informal meetings had been held in relation to the applicant’s case and that all decisions in relation to his case had been recorded in the IC email system, or on the document management and record management systems. Finally, Revenue stated that no records exist in relation to chats, messages or calls, and that records are not held of internal telephone calls.
Following the applicant’s response to Revenue’s initial submissions, further questions were put to Revenue regarding the searches it had carried out. In its response, Revenue addressed the apparent lack of records relating to meetings that the records released to the applicant indicated had been held or had been planned. In general, it said, Revenue’s policies do not require all telephone calls and discussions between staff to be recorded. With regard to specific meetings that were mentioned in released records, Revenue stated that consultation with relevant staff members indicated that the planned discussions either never eventually took place or, where they did, no records were made of them. Regarding the possibility of relevant records existing outside of Revenue’s computer systems, Revenue stated that the staff concerned had confirmed that other sources, such as messaging or other communications systems, were not used and that that there are no handwritten notes relating to this case. Revenue also stated that personal devices are not used for work purposes.
With regard to the applicant’s request for records relating to the assignment and removal of statistical codes, Revenue said that the exact model of the applicant’s vehicle was not listed on the NVRTS calculator code. It said that a one-off code was used for the applicant’s car. Revenue said that Records 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52,56, 59, 67 and 115 refer to the applicant’s case in relation to the assignment and removal of Statistical Codes for VRT purposes, as they relate directly to his case. Revenue said that it also holds records, guidance notes, internal policies and documented procedures regarding the assignment and removal of Statistical Codes for VRT purposes. It acknowledged that this part of the applicant’s FOI request was unfortunately overlooked and was not addressed in its FOI Decision letter. It said that this was an oversight at the decision-making stage and is very much regretted. Revenue said that further searches had now been conducted, and six additional records had been located that come within the scope of this part of the request. It said that five of these records are published at www.revenue.ie and that the information is already in the public domain. One record is an internal operational document which is referred to as Stat Codes.pdf. Revenue said that once this oversight came to light, the decision maker sent an email to the requester with an apology for the omission. The decision maker fully released the record Stat Codes.pdf. and provided the applicant with links to the five records published at www.revenue.ie.
In subsequent submissions, Revenue indicated that it had previously released another relevant record (Section 8 of its VRT manual) to the applicant outside of the FOI process, during communication with him relating to his VRT appeal. As such, Revenue considers that the applicant is in possession of this record and therefore relied on section 15(1)(i) of the Act in refusing to release it to him again. Having directed the applicant to relevant records available on its website, Revenue noted that section 15(1)(d) of the Act applies to the information that is publicly available. The Investigating Officer provided the applicant with an update setting out Revenue’s position concerning records relating to Statistical Codes for VRT purposes.
In his submissions to this Office the applicant repeatedly referenced his dissatisfaction with Revenue’s initial reliance upon exemptions and subsequent reversal of redactions, the drip-feed nature of the release of records, and what he considers to be administrative failures of Revenue in the lack of records of certain meetings. He also referred to the lack of OMSP and VRT refund calculation records as well as the lack of non-email records, including from other communication channels, hand-written notes and devices. He specifically mentioned the absence of written records of meetings that were mentioned in released records as well as internal memos, case summaries and calculation sheets. The applicant questioned the adequacy of the searches undertaken by Revenue.
The applicant was provided with details of Revenue’s initial submissions. In his response, he maintained that it was still unclear to him whether all relevant locations had been searched. He also pointed to what he saw as the lack of any reference to records relating to the removal of VRT statistical codes in general and in particular the statistical code for his vehicle. The applicant stated that, in his opinion, the late discovery of the 27 records raised serious questions about the reliability of Revenue’s original searches. He also questioned whether attachments visible in the 27 newly released records had been released. In response to a query from the Investigating Officer about these attachments, Revenue identified the relevant record number for each attachment, details of which were provided to the applicant.
When Revenue’s follow-up submissions were put to him, the applicant questioned Revenue’s statement that an oversight was the cause of the six newly released records relating to the statistical code element of his request not having been previously released. He further claimed that none of these records contain guidance on the removal or deletion of statistical codes and that they therefore do not correspond to what he had requested. The applicant also expressed disappointment with Revenue’s explanation for the non-existence of records relating to certain discussions or meetings concerning his case, maintaining that either such discussions occurred but were never recorded or that they were recorded but were not disclosed.
Firstly, I share the applicant’s view that Revenue fell well short in its initial decisions on his request, and I appreciate that the release of additional records located during the course of this review does little to give confidence in Revenue’s handling of his request. While it may be of little assurance to the applicant, Revenue has acknowledged and apologised for its shortcomings in dealing with this matter.
It is important to note that the FOI Act does not require absolute certainty as to the existence or location of records, as situations can arise where records are lost or simply cannot be found. What the FOI Act requires is that the public body concerned takes all reasonable steps to locate relevant records. Furthermore, it is open to this Office to find that an FOI body has satisfied the requirements of section 15(1)(a), even where records that an applicant believes ought to exist have not been located. We do not generally expect FOI bodies to carry out extensive or indefinite general searches for records simply because an applicant asserts that records should or might exist.
The question I must consider is whether Revenue has now justified its position that it has undertaken all reasonable steps to locate the records sought by the applicant.
Notwithstanding Revenue’s shortcomings in dealing with the applicant’s request, I am satisfied that it has. It seems to me, leaving aside the redactions originally made by Revenue, that the primary flaw in Revenue’s original searches resulted from it only using the applicant’s PPS number to search for relevant records. As noted above, when Revenue extended its search parameters, further records were located and released to the applicant. Revenue said that it also consulted with relevant staff who confirmed that no record of meetings or other notes, etc. exist concerning the applicant’s VRT case. While I acknowledge the applicant’s arguments that further records ought to exist, particularly relating to meetings and the assignment and removal of statistical codes, in the absence of any evidence to suggest that further searches are warranted in this case, I am satisfied that Revenue has now demonstrated that it has taken all reasonable steps to locate the records sought by the applicant and that it has adequately explained why no further records exist or can be found.
Accordingly, I find that Revenue is justified at this time in refusing access to further records coming within the scope of the applicant’s request under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act on the basis that no further records exist or can be found after all reasonable steps to ascertain their whereabouts have been taken.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby affirm Revenue’s decision. I find that Revenue is justified in refusing, under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, the applicant’s request for further relevant records on the ground that no further records exist or can be found.
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