Decision
Ms X & The Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council (the Council)
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-162475-P3C5M0
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-162475-P3C5M0
Published on
Whether the Council was justified in charging the applicant a fee to carry out an internal review of the decision it made on her FOI request
26 November 2025
In a request dated 20 July 2025, the applicant sought access to:
1. I wish to be informed who specifically made the decision a new Allocations Scheme was necessary, and to change the Allocations Scheme that was in place in 2020 and bring in a new Allocations Scheme in 2021. I am making this request under Section 10 of the Freedom of Information Act - 'right of person to information to acts of FOI bodies affecting the person'.
2. Please provide me with records regarding the person or persons who drafted, wrote and edited the 2021 Allocations Scheme. Please provide initial draft copies, edits and final versions.
3. Please provide me with correspondence, meetings, minutes, emails and records regarding the 2021 Allocations Scheme. Please include correspondence with elected members.
4. Please provide a copy of the 2011 Allocations Scheme (Dun Laoghaire Rathdown).
5. Please provide records from the Housing SPC regarding the Housing Allocations Scheme (2020 - date)
6. I wish to be informed who specifically made the decision to alter the areas of choice for the county in relation to social housing. I am also requesting this under Section 10 of the FOI Act.
7. Please provide me with all records related to the changing of areas of choice in relation to social housing (from four areas to three areas, and boundary changes). Please provide all correspondence, meeting records, minutes, emails etc. Please include correspondence with elected members.
8. Please provide all records related to the HAP Transfer List and the Allocations Scheme 2021 (years 2020- date)
9. Please provide copies of all letters issued to housing list applicants and those in receipt of social housing support in relation to the Allocations Scheme 2021 and in relation to the changing areas of choice.
10. Please provide a report detailing all the 'lists' in operation by the Housing Department i.e Housing Waiting List, HAP Transfer, RAS Transfer, Older Persons, Medical Priority, Special Adaptions, Downsizing etc. Please provide numbers on each list, bed size and time on each list.
11. Please provide a report detailing the number of HAP transfers vs. number of Housing Waiting List Allocations (2021-2025 - since inception of Allocations Scheme).
12. Please provide an audit of allocations for the years 2019-2025.
13. Please provide information on the process that is followed/the decision-making process in assigning/ allocating housing to various 'lists' or 'transfer lists' or placed on CBL. Please provide official documents/ records. I am asking this also under Section 10 of the FOI Act.
In a subsequent email sent by the applicant to the Council on 21 July 2025, the applicant included the following in her FOI request:
14. Please provide the basis for reviewing the 2011 Allocations Scheme and subsequently introducing a new Allocations Scheme. Please provide any meeting notes, records, emails etc in this regard.
15. Please provide the official written reports from 2015-2025 inclusive on Allocations, prepared by the Manager, submitted to members of the housing authority, specifying the different categories of dwellings and households and the proportions of each such category, by reference to the total number of such allocations in the preceding year.
16. Please provide the date the 2021 Allocation Scheme was first made available for inspection by the public. Please provide the date it was made available on the internet with screenshots, and the date and location(s) it was made available at County offices, and any dates made available at any other places considered appropriate. Please provide supporting evidence.
17. Please provide a report on the number of Tenant in Situ enquiries re: purchase of HAP properties by the Housing Department.
18. Please provide a report on the number of Tenant in Situ purchases made by the Department.
19. Please provide a report on the number of HAP tenants made homeless due to Tenant in Situ purchases not progressing.
20. Please provide a report on the number of HAP tenancies awarded Overall Priority due to eviction.
In a decision dated 15 August 2025, the Council refused the applicant’s request under section 15(1)(g) of the FOI Act on the basis that it considered the request to be frivolous or vexatious or part of a pattern of manifestly unreasonable requests. In its decision letter, the Council notified the applicant of her right to request an internal review and that there is an upfront fee in order for the Council to process a request for internal review. On 26 August 2025, the applicant requested an internal review and challenged the Council’s decision to charge an internal review fee.
The Council subsequently informed the applicant her that the charging of upfront fees in respect of an internal review is provided for under the FOI Act and that it would proceed with her request for an internal review upon receipt of the appropriate fee.
On 14 September 2025, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of the Council’s decision. This Office notified the applicant that her application for a review was accepted on the basis that our review would be concerned solely with the Council’s decision to charge an upfront fee to carry out an internal review.
In her submissions to this Office, the applicant said she did not believe she ought to have to pay the upfront fee for an internal review of her request because, in her view, the decision was not made in accordance with fair procedures in that the decision-maker was biased against her. She said the appeal fees should be waived due to the lack of a fair first-instance 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 correspondence outlined above and to the submissions made by the applicant in support of her application for review. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
This review is concerned solely with whether the Council was justified in charging the upfront fee to carry out an internal review of its original decision on the applicant’s request.
As no internal review of the Council’s original decision has been carried out to date, I have no jurisdiction at this time to review the Council’s substantive decision to refuse the request under section 15(1)(g).
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.
Furthermore, it is important to note that section 13(4) of the FOI Act provides that in deciding whether to grant or refuse a request, any reason that the requester gives for the request shall be disregarded. This means that I cannot have regard to the applicant’s motives for seeking access to the information in question, except in so far as those motives reflect what might be regarded as genuine public interest factors in favour of release of the information where the FOI Act requires a consideration of the public interest (not relevant in this case).
Section 27(13) provides that a fee shall (my emphasis) be charged in respect of an internal review application. Section 27(13) of the Act states:
(a) A fee of such amount (if any) as may be prescribed shall be charged by the FOI body concerned under this subsection and paid by the applicant concerned to—
(i) the body in respect of an application under section 21, or
(ii) the Commissioner in respect of an application under section 22
(b) A fee under this subsection shall be paid at the time of the making of the application concerned and, if it is not so paid, the head concerned or, as the case may be, the Commissioner shall refuse to accept the application, and it shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, not to have been made.
>(c) Fees of different amounts may be prescribed under paragraph (a) in respect of different classes of applicant.
These application fees are sometimes referred to as ‘up-front’ fees. Application fees must be paid at the time of the application for internal review. If the fee is not paid, the application must be refused, and it is deemed as not having been made. The prescribed fee is set out in the Freedom of Information Act (Fees)(No.2) Regulations 2014 [S.I. No. 531 of 2014] (the Regulations). Under Regulation 4, a fee of €30 is prescribed for an application for internal review. (A reduced fee of €10 applies for medical card holders.)
Under the Regulations, a fee is not payable in respect of an application for internal review where:
a) the record(s) contain only personal information relating to the applicant,
b) the application is in relation to a decision under section 9 or 10 or,
c) the application is in relation to a decision to charge a fee or deposit, or a fee or deposit of a particular amount, under section 27.
As can be seen from the applicant’s request detailed above, in addition to requesting a series of records and information, the applicant also sought a statement of reasons under section 10 of the FOI Act within parts of her request.
As noted above, under the Fees (No. 2) Regulations 2014, a fee is not payable in respect of an application for internal review where the application is in relation to a decision under section 10. In the circumstances, I find that the Council was not justified in charging an internal review fee in respect of those parts of the applicant’s request, which in addition to seeking access to records, also sought a statement of reasons under section 10 of the Act, i.e. Parts 1, 6 and 13 of the applicant’s request. In the circumstances, I consider the most appropriate course of action for me to take is to annul the Council’s decision to charge a fee for an internal review of those parts of the applicant’s request made under section 10 of the Act. The consequence of this is that the Council must proceed with the internal review without charging a fee for those parts of the request where she asked for a statement of reasons under section 10.
Notwithstanding my findings in relation to section 10, the majority of the applicant’s request concerns access to non-personal records. The language of the Act is clear that the charging of an upfront fee for an internal review is mandatory and must be paid prior to an FOI body accepting a request for an internal review, irrespective of the applicant’s views about the appropriateness of the fee in her case. Where the appropriate fee is not paid, the body shall refuse to accept the application, and it is deemed, for the purposes of the FOI Act, not to have been made. While there are specific circumstances, as outlined above where no fee applies, such as requests for personal information and a statement of reasons under section 10, it is clear that none of those circumstances apply other than outlined above in respect of parts 1, 6 and 13 of the applicant’s request. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the Council was justified in levying a fee for an internal review in regard to those parts of the applicant’s request concerning access to records. Accordingly, I find that the Council was justified in charging a fee to carry out an internal review of the remainder of the applicant’s request.
If the applicant wishes to proceed with her request for an internal review on access to the records she requested, she must pay the relevant fee to the Council. If she does proceed and is unhappy with the Council’s internal review decision, her normal right of appeal to this Office will apply.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby vary the Council’s decision to levy the fee prescribed under section 27(13)(a)(i) of the FOI Act in respect of the entirety of the applicant’s request for internal review. I annul the Council’s decision to charge a fee for an internal review of those parts of the applicant’s request made under section 10 of the Act and I direct the Council to process the applicant’s request for internal review for those parts of her request only. I find that the Council was justified in charging a fee for an internal review of its decision in relation to the remainder of the applicant’s request for access to records.
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