Decision
Mr. X and Quality and Qualifications Ireland
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-140087-T0D5C0
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-140087-T0D5C0
Published on
Whether QQI was justified in refusing access, under section 15(1)(a) of the Act, to further records relating to student complaints or concerns made to QQI by students on the basis that no further relevant records exist or can be found
8 January 2025
This decision follows on from a previous decision issued by this Office on 8 July 2022 in case OIC-115450. In that case, the Senior Investigator annulled QQI’s decision to refuse, under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, the applicant’s request for records relating to complaints or concerned received since its formation and directed it to undertake a fresh decision making process on the matter.
On 5 October 2022, a QQI staff member wrote to the applicant and appeared to respond to a number of queries that were previously raised by the applicant. On 9 November 2023, the applicant asked the member of staff to clarify what it required of him in relation to the decision of the Senior Investigator in case 115450, in order for QQI to carry out proper searches.
On 6 December 2023, a different member of staff informed the applicant that he would review the records that were released to him under the original request and see what associated records remain outstanding. He said that given the time that has elapsed, there was a possibility that the records were no longer available.
On 21 February 2023, the member of staff said that he had identified records for release. He said that the records were mostly email messages and that some required redacting. He said that in order to issue the records, he would have to convert the records to text files and then to PDF format which is time consuming, but that he hoped to complete this process in a few days.
On 14 March 2023, QQI issued what appears to be a fresh decision on the applicant’s request. It said that it was “arranging to share three folders” that the applicant would “receive links to followed by emails with a codes” that would allow him to access the records, which it said were associated with the records already released to him where they still exist. QQI said it did not have the resources to document the records being made available. It said that access to the folders was temporary and advised the applicant to “arrange to download any records of interest as soon as possible.”
It appears that the applicant sought an internal review of QQI’s fresh decision on 27 March 2023 following which, on 29 May 2023, he sought a review by this Office of the deemed refusal of his request on the ground that he did not receive an internal review decision. He subsequently provided this Office with additional correspondence to show that he had sought an internal review.
On 29 June 2023, QQI informed the applicant of its effective position on the request. It said that the information supplied to the applicant previously “comprises what is available and releasable” pursuant to the request. On 30 June 2023, the applicant confirmed that he wanted this Office to review QQI’s effective position on the request.
During the course of the review, the Investigating Officer provide the applicant with details of QQI’s submissions wherein it outlined the searches undertaken, and the reasons for concluding that no further relevant records exist or can be found. She invited the applicant to make submissions on the matter, and such further submissions were duly received.
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 both parties. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
The applicant considers that further relevant records should exist. QQI’s position is that it has taken all reasonable steps to locate relevant records and that no further relevant records, apart from the records already released, exist or can be found. This is, in essence, a refusal to grant access to further relevant records under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, which provides for the refusal of a request where the records sought do not exist or cannot be found.
Accordingly, this review is concerned solely with whether QQI was justified in refusing access, under section 15(1)(a) of the Act, to any additional relevant records coming within the scope of the applicant's request apart from the records already released.
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 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 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.
The Investigating Officer asked QQI to provide details of the searches it undertook to locate relevant records in this case. The general thrust of QQI’s initial submission was that no further records exist, apart from the records already released to the applicant, which were apparently deleted by QQI but which since appear to have been recovered. In its initial submission, QQI said that the examination of complaints from individual learners does not come within its legislative remit. It said it deals, primarily, at the education provider / institution level so complaints of the nature requested are few. It said there is no complaints procedure for learners and that complaints involving learners are dealt with on an ad hoc basis. It said that when received, learner complaints are dealt with by its Awards Directorate. QQI’s FOI Officer said that on foot of the original request, he was provided with links to the records, which he copied to his FOI folder. He said that the records released are his copied records and are all that remain of the original complaints. He said that as the complaints were resolved by the providers, there would be no reason for QQI to retain the records. He said that QQI initially released the complaints and not the associated records as there seemed to be some confusion about what was required. He said he did not save the unredacted versions of the records prior to applying redactions to third party personal information and converting the records to PDF format. He said he was satisfied that a full search had been carried out and that all complaints on file had been provided. He said he was aware of a further complaint of which he had personal knowledge, but that he had determined that those records no longer existed.
Following receipt of QQI’s submission, the Investigating Officer sought clarification of a number of matters. She queried QQI’s submission that the FOI Officer was aware of a further complaint but that he subsequently “determined that those records no longer exist.” In response, the FOI Officer said that he “thought that paper files had been kept by the former Head of Corporate Affairs”. He said that he had since confirmed that those records have been deleted.
The Investigating Officer also queried when relevant records were deleted by QQI and the basis on which they were deleted. In response, the FOI Officer said he copied the records to his own FOI folder and deleted the originals after they were redacted. He said he is not clear when they were deleted, but that, broadly speaking, it would have been in the past 18 months. He said it was not known when the Awards Directorate files were deleted, nor when the records were deleted by the former Head of Corporate Affairs. He said that there was a hard copy file and that the Director who had been dealing with it retired in December 2017. He said that complaints from learners are not included in QQI’s Record Retention Guide but may fall under general correspondence which can be deleted after 2 years. QQI provided this Office with a copy of its Interim Retention Guide, which it said has not been updated.
QQI subsequently informed this Office that it was able to retrieve the Awards Directorate files that were previously deleted. It said that it “appears that we have all of the unredacted records that issued” to the applicant. The Investigating Officer sought further details of searches undertaken by QQI to locate records relevant to the applicant’s request. In its submissions, QQI stated that occasionally complaints are received via email or through its online QBS system (QQI’s case record management system). It said that any queries / complaints are then forwarded via QBS to the relevant person in the appropriate unit. It said that in this case the relevant unit was the Validation/Quality Assurance Division which is part of QQI’s Awards Directorate. It said a folder is opened for each complaint and all relevant documentation is filed there.
The Investigating Officer asked QQI for details of the exact locations where searches were undertaken by QQI. It said that a former QQI staff member contacted the Awards Directorate and determined that complaints from learners are dealt with by the Validation Unit. It said this is because Validation deals directly with providers and their quality assurance which leads to their inclusion as a recognised QQI provider with sanction to provide programmes leading to QQI awards. QQI explained that complaints might indicate issues which impact on the quality assurance of the provider and as a result, complaints from learners are not dealt with anywhere else in QQI. QQI stated that the Head of the Quality Assurance Unit explained that generally, complaints that come to QQI are not for QQI and as such QQI head the complainants on to the provider who generally deal with them as best they can. It stated that there are no other locations where relevant records may be within QQI and that the head of Quality Assurance was the only individual consulted. It stated that the Quality Assurance Division has its own suite of folders on the Public Drive and the records are stored there. QQI further explained that cloud storage is used to store records and that dormant files (i.e. those files that are no longer in active use) are retained on the public drive and are the responsibility of the Quality Assurance Division.
The Investigating Officer sought clarification from QQI regarding what records would normally be created when a complaint or concern is received by QQI. In response, it said that it holds no hard copy records. It said it was satisfied that there were only a small number of complaints from students and that as QQI has no statutory role in dealing with learners and their complaints, it does not have a standard procedure to process them.
In the course of a subsequent meeting between this office and QQI on the matter, QQI said that no complaints were processed by any units other than the Awards Directorate and Quality Assurance Unit within QQI. It said that only complaints concerning service providers would be received by the Awards Directorate and Quality Assurance Unit. It said it is an awarding body which approves programmes and is further involved in quality assurance for said programmes. It said this includes complaints procedures, in which QQI evaluates the capacity of the body to deal with complaints. It said that QQI’s role is to ensure that complaints are dealt with in an appropriate manner by the awarding body. It said that when an email is received, where complaint is in the subject line of said email, a response will issue to the learner in order to check if QQI is allowed to identify the complainant to the provider. It said that the complaint is then forwarded on to the provider. It said that the Monitoring section within QQI is also contacted in relation to complaints, to ensure that folders are created for specific providers. It said that there is a provider database which contains links to complaints, and upon receiving a complaint, a form is filled out where it can log the complaint, and a complaint ID is automatically generated.
QQI added that where it receives a hard copy complaint, the document is scanned and the complaint is added to the form in a similar manner to other documents. It said that following this, the paper copy is destroyed in line with the paperless office policy operated. It said that the entire directorate was searched for records relevant to the applicant’s request. It said all records were found and released to the applicant bar one legacy record which was dealt with by a former QQI staff member. It said that the staff member retired in 2017 and that the records were deleted/destroyed in line with the two year records retention policy. It said that the Qhelp system (QQI helpdesk) was installed after 2012 and prior to this the Central Drive existed from QQI’s inception. It said a separate search was conducted of the Central Drive was conducted to locate records relevant to the applicant’s request using complaints as a keyword. It stated that this search only returned records which had already been released to the applicant. Regarding the cloud storage system, QQI said that this is the only system that exists within QQI, and that there are no hard copy documents held within QQI. It said that QQI is essentially a paperless Office as part of the paperless policy and as a result, the Cloud Storage system is where all records relating to QQI would be held.
QQI further said that all complaints of the nature requested are within the Quality Assurance Unit of QQI. It said that one of the roles of the Quality Assurance Unit is to receive complaints of service providers certified by QQI. It said that the where a complaint is made to QQI it is entered into the complaints database which is fully searchable and segregated. QQI said complaints are stored under Monitoring and then under the subsection of complaints, and there is a specific page for recording complaints made against a provider. It said that when the request was made, the database was searched and filtered for all complaints made concerning providers since establishment in November 2011. It said that within the database each individual complaint has a link to the documents relevant to that complaint which are stored in sub-folders on a shared drive under the relevant provider, whom the complaint concerns. It said that once a complaint is received the standard operating procedure for recording a complaint on the provider database is to go to Provider/Quality Assurance Approval, locate the individual provider details and select the relevant provider. It said that once the relevant provider has been identified and selected, QQI selects the complaints button in the monitoring system. It said that at the top of the complaints screen, the “create a new complaint” button is selected on the system. It said that once a new complaint form is opened on the system, all sections of the complaint form are completed and any scanned, electronic documents, and/or emails relating to the complaint are saved to the complaint’s subfolder within the relevant provider’s folder in the public drive of QQI. It stated that on the complaint’s form a hyperlink is attached to the subfolder containing records relating to the complaint. QQI stated that on the complaint’s form the notes/record of complaint section is updated with a brief summary of the complaint. QQI said that any further interaction shared by the complaint handler is recorded and added to the documents folder as required. QQI stated that when a complaint is closed the date of the complaint closure is recorded.
In his submissions, the applicant stated that QQI does, indeed, accept and process complaints from people. He stated that some of the records already released to the him, including requests from QQI for detailed written explanations from colleges and requests for meetings, demonstrate QQI’s involvement. The applicant is of the view that QQI’s submission that complaints do not come within its legislative remit is untrue.
The applicant stated that while QQI’s submissions stated that searches for records relevant to his request were carried out by computer, it did not refer to physical searches nor did it refer to email searches. He additionally stated that QQI referred to cloud storage as a method for storing their records but did not state whether cloud storage had been searched. The applicant also referred to a complaint made in hardcopy format to QQI and stated that he had not received a copy. The applicant provided this Office with a schedule of records from QQI, which included references to some complaints being made in writing to QQI.
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 FOI body concerned takes all reasonable steps to locate the relevant records. Accordingly, the role of this Office in cases where an FOI body refuses a request under section 15(1)(a) is to determine whether the body has taken all reasonable steps to ascertain the whereabouts of relevant records. This Office does 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 or because the evidence suggests that records did, in fact exist at some stage in the past.
I must admit that determining whether the QQI has taken all reasonable steps to ascertain the whereabouts of relevant records in this case has not been straightforward, primarily due to the manner in which QQI originally processed the request, coupled with the often piecemeal nature of the responses provided to this Office during the review. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that QQI has, at this stage, provided sufficient information concerning the manner in which it deals with student complaints, the manner in which it handles related records, and the details of the searches actually undertaken, to allow me to conclude that it has, indeed, taken all reasonable steps to ascertain the whereabouts of relevant records.
On the specific matter of electronic searches undertaken, I accept QQI’s submissions that complaints are filed and stored on complaint folders within individual provider’s folders on QQI’s database. I also accept QQI’s submissions that electronic searches were carried out of provider folders to locate complaints relevant to the applicant’s request. Regarding the applicant’s queries in relation to the cloud storage system, I accept QQI’s explanation that the cloud storage system is its only record storage system and that there are no hard copy documents held by QQI in line with its paperless office policy. I also accept QQI’s submission that this system and the Drive system, which existed prior to the cloud storage system, were searched for records relevant to the applicant’s request, and that no records, other than those already released to the applicant, were found. Regarding the applicant’s submissions relating to the existence of a hardcopy complaint held by QQI, having considered QQI’s submissions that where complaints are received by post, the records are scanned and uploaded onto the relevant complaints folder and that the hardcopy record is then destroyed in line with its paperless office policy, I accept that no further records relevant to the applicant’s request were found after all reasonable steps to locate relevant records were taken.
Having regard to QQI’s submissions, and in the absence of evidence to suggest that further specific searches are warranted, I am satisfied that QQI has taken all reasonable steps to locate the records sought by the applicant. Accordingly, I find that QQI was justified in refusing access to further relevant records under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act on the basis that no further records exist or can be found after all reasonable searches to ascertain their whereabouts have been undertaken.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby affirm the decision of QQI. I find it was justified, under section 15(1)(a), in refusing accessed to further relevant records relating to complaints or concerned received since its formation other than those already released to date.
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.
Stephen Rafferty
Senior Investigator