Decision
Ms X and University College Dublin
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-155042-W5F8R3
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-155042-W5F8R3
Published on
Whether UCD’s decision to extend the time frame for considering the applicant’s request was in accordance with the provisions of section 14 of the FOI Act
20 February 2025
As I understand it, the applicant’s request in this case follows a previous request she had made for records relating to her Extenuating Circumstances Application. On 5 December 2024, the applicant requested all records relating to (1) decisions relating to her, (2) reviews (of her academic performance) and (3) meetings, discussions and/or correspondence during which any decisions/reviews relating to her were made or undertaken, specifically, but not limited to, specified dates and specified boards, committees, or individuals.
On 3 January 2025, UCD informed the applicant that it was extending the time-frame for issuing a decision on her FOI request by four weeks, and that it would make every effort to issue a decision by 30 January 2025, and sooner if records became available prior to this date. On 4 January 2025, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of UCD’s decision to apply a time extension.
On 17 January 2025, UCD issued its decision on the applicant’s request, wherein it part-granted access to four emails and an attachment to one of those emails and refused access to further records under section 15(1)(a) of the Act. It is important to note that this review does not concern UCD’s substantive decision on access to the records sought by the applicant. As such, my decision in this case can have no tangible impact on the processing of the applicant’s request. When contacted by this Office about the time extension applied by UCD, the applicant said she wanted this review to proceed to a 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 UCD in support of its decision. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
This review is concerned solely with whether UCD’s decision to extend the time frame for considering the applicant’s request was in accordance with the provisions of section 14 of the FOI Act.
Section 14(1) of the FOI Act allows an FOI body to extend the four-week period specified in section 13(1) for consideration of a request by up to four additional weeks if it considers that;
a) the request relates to such number of records, or
b) the number of other FOI requests relating either to the record or records to which the specified request relates or to information corresponding to that to which the specified request relates or to both that have been made to the FOI body concerned before the specified request was made to it and in relation to which a decision under section 13 has not been made is such,
that compliance with the four-week period specified in section 13(1) is not reasonably possible.
In its email of 3 January 2025 to the applicant, UCD did not at any point refer to section 14 of the FOI Act, nor did it specify which sub-section it was relying on for extending the period. UCD did, however, state that its reason for extending the time period was to allow the record holders additional time to collate records for the FOI request. I note that in its submissions to this Office, UCD stated that in light of this appeal, it has conducted a review of its template letters to ensure that, when an extension of time is applied to a request, the requester is explicitly informed that section 14 is being relied upon, including the relevant subsection.
In its submissions to this Office, UCD stated that it applied the time extension in accordance with section 14(1)(a) of the FOI Act. However, it did acknowledge that, upon reflection of the relevant provision in the Act, it’s decision to apply a time extension did not fall strictly within the provisions of section 14(1)(a) of the FOI Act.
UCD stated that, following discussions with its legal representatives, a copy of the applicant’s request was sent by the FOI Unit to the relevant school liaison officer on 12 December 2024. It stated the relevant school’s liaison officer was asked to provide all records that fell within the scope of the applicant’s request. UCD stated that its FOI Unit received a response from the relevant school on 19 December 2024. It stated that it did not have the opportunity to fully consider the response provided by the relevant school until its return to Office following the closure of the university for the Christmas period from 24 December 2024 to 2 January 2025 and associated staff annual leave.
UCD stated that, given that a decision on the applicant’s request was due to be issued by 3 January 2025, the FOI Unit manager made the decision to extend the due date for the decision in order to allow for further searches of records to be conducted. The FOI Unit stated that it was concerned that the broader scope of the request may not have been fully understood by the relevant school, and it believed it was possible that records such as meeting invitations, agendas, and materials provided for review at meetings could exist, which may not have been captured by the previous FOI requests submitted by the applicant. As such, the FOI Unit manager said they made the decision to apply a time extension in order to ensure a thorough and comprehensive response to the request could be provided.
The circumstances in which an FOI body may extend the four-week period for processing a request are quite narrow and specific. Section 2 of the FOI Act defines the term “week” as meaning a period of 5 consecutive week-days and, in determining such a period, a Saturday or a public holiday (within the meaning of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997) shall be disregarded.
Section 14 does not provide for extensions of the time-frame for considering requests on the basis of other FOI related (or any other) administrative challenges arising, nor does it provide for an extension in circumstances where the timeframe for providing a response is reduced due to a holiday season (other than public holidays). Under section 14(1)(a), the FOI body is entitled to extend the decision making period only where the request relates to such number of records that compliance with the four-week time-frame set out in section 13 is not reasonably possible.
The FOI Act provides no guidance on the number of records that might be involved before an extension can be appropriately applied. Therefore, each case must be considered on its merits based on the particular facts and circumstances. Nevertheless, the provision is clear that a decision to extend the period must be based on the number of records to which the request relates.
In my view, it is evident from the number of records at issue in this case that UCD has provided insufficient evidence to support a claim that the request related to such a number of records that compliance with the four-week period was not reasonably possible. I acknowledge UCD’s comments on the reasons for the delay, however, the applicant’s request was ultimately concerned with a relatively small number of records. Additionally, I note the applicant submitted her request on 5 December 2024, and the request for searches to be conducted was not sent to the relevant school until a week later, on 12 December 2024. I acknowledge that when the response was received on 19 December 2024, this only left the FOI Unit 3 days to review the submissions prior to the deadline of 3 January 2025 for issuing the decision. I note too that in its submissions, UCD said the decision to extend the due date was made in good faith to facilitate a more accurate response and to ensure compliance with the spirit of the FOI Act, which promotes access to information where it exists.
Whilst I accept UCD acted in good faith having regard to its Christmas closure and the desire to ensure full searches were undertaken to locate all relevant records, the provisions of section 14 are very specific and do not allow for the extension of the period for consideration of a request in the circumstances set out by UCD. In the circumstances of this case, UCD has not satisfied me that an extension was warranted.
Accordingly, while my findings in this case can have no tangible benefit for the applicant given that UCD has already issued its substantive decision on her request, I find that UCD’s decision to extend the period for considering the applicant’s request was not in accordance with the provisions of section 14(1)(a) of the FOI Act.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby annul UCD’s decision to extend the period for consideration of the applicant’s request under section 14(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