Decision
Mr. X and the Office of the Revenue Commissioners
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-154820-C7D3F4
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-154820-C7D3F4
Published on
Whether Revenue was justified, under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, in refusing access to further Local Property Tax (LPT) records relating to a particular property, on the basis that no further records exist or can be found
19 August 2025
On 22 March 2024, the applicant made a request to Revenue for records relating to a specified property. In reply, Revenue asked the applicant to specify what records he is seeking. On 7 April 2024, the applicant said his request is for copies of the LPT records relating to the property. On 22 May 2024, Revenue granted access to 9 records in full and part-granted access to a further 7 records, withholding certain information under section 37(1) of the FOI Act on the basis that the information constituted personal information of a third party.
On 28 May 2024, the applicant sought an internal review of Revenue’s decision. On 19 June 2024, Revenue affirmed its original decision. It also released what it described as a supplementary record, which its Local Property Tax Unit had issued to the applicant on 7 June 2024 about the property. As the applicant noted, this “supplementary” letter is outside the scope of his original request.
On 17 December 2024, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of Revenue’s decision. The applicant stated he wished for all redactions made to the records to be reviewed, with the exception of Record 6. Additionally, on 18 December 2024, the applicant wrote to this Office and asked that we review Revenue’s withholding of records from both its original and internal review decisions. On 16 January 2025, the applicant made further submissions to this Office in the matter.
On 7 March 2025, during the course of this review, Revenue released 9 additional records to the applicant, as well as releasing additional information which it had withheld in its original decision. Revenue said that the remaining redactions relate to information of a third party and was withheld under section 37(1) of the FOI Act. The Investigating Officer wrote to the applicant and asked how he wished to proceed on foot of the additional records released by Revenue. In his reply, the applicant said he does not believe Revenue has disclosed all the records sought. The Investigating Officer subsequently provided the applicant with details of Revenue’s submissions wherein it outlined the searches undertaken to locate the records sought and its reasons for concluding that no further records exist or could be found, as well as its reasons for redacting information under section 37(1) of the Act. The Investigating Officer invited the applicant to make submissions on the matter, which he duly did. The applicant said that the remaining redactions are not in dispute but contends further records ought to exist.
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 both parties during the course of this review. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
As noted above, the applicant is no longer disputing the remaining redactions made by Revenue under section 37(1) of the Act. Accordingly, this review is concerned solely with whether Revenue was justified, under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, in refusing access to further LPT records relating to the property in question on the basis that no further records exist or can be found.
Before I address the substantive matters arising, I wish to make a number of preliminary comments.
In his submissions to this Office, the applicant complained about how Revenue handled his request and also complained about this Office’s interactions with him during the course of our review. While I do not intend to repeat the detail of those complaints here, I can confirm that I have had regard to the applicant’s submissions in full. In regard to applicant’s comments about the conduct of our review, I am satisfied that this Office acted appropriately at all times in the conduct of our review.
It is important to note that this review has been conducted under section 22(2) of the Act and therefore cannot be extended into a wider investigation into how the request was handled by Revenue. Such an investigation, were it to take place, could only be initiated by this Office under section 44 of the FOI Act. Amongst other things, section 44 empowers this Office to carry out investigations into the practices and procedures adopted by FOI bodies generally or any particular FOI body or bodies for the purposes of compliance with the provisions of the Act. A decision to undertake a general investigation under section 44 of the Act is not one that is taken lightly and is quite uncommon. In the particular circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that an investigation under section 44 is not warranted.
In his submissions to this Office, the applicant also expressed his dissatisfaction that Revenue initially withheld information that relates to his late mother. The applicant said he was the executor of his late mother’s estate, and as such, no redactions should have been made to any records relating to his late mother and the LPT Property ID in question. He claims Revenue was aware that he was the executor of his late mother’s estate, as evidenced by information contained in the records. As noted above, Revenue released additional information relating to the applicant’s late mother during the course of this review. 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 our decision and is not confined to the basis upon which Revenue reached its decision on the applicant’s request. Accordingly, as access to the information about the applicant’s late mother was released to the applicant during this review, I do not intend to consider the matter further.
Finally, the applicant contends that Revenue committed a number of data breaches under GDPR. Complaints about GDPR are a matter for the Data Protection Commission.
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. My 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 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, Revenue provided this Office with details of the searches that it undertook to locate relevant records, details of which were provided to the applicant. While I do not propose to repeat the submissions received by this Office from both parties in full here, I confirm that I have had regard to them for the purpose of this review.
In his submissions to this Office, the applicant claims he knows for a fact that Revenue has withheld records. The applicant did not share details of what additional records he claims to exist and said if he provides those details “all I will receive back is copies of what I already know exists”.
The applicant claims Revenue incorrectly confined itself to electronic searches and queried whether physical searches had been conducted by Revenue for hard-copy records falling within the scope of his request. The applicant also contends that Revenue withheld copies of internal emails because they are conspicuous by their absence from the schedule of records he received from Revenue.
The applicant also said that two other parties have been linked to the property which is the subject of his FOI request. He contends that Revenue incorrectly confined itself to the LPT number, as opposed to the property itself, and to two of the PPSN’s linked to the property (both his and his late mother’s) as opposed to the four PPSN’s he believes were linked to the property. Revenue’s submissions In its submissions to this Office, Revenue said the applicant became linked to the property in question with effect from July 2016, meaning he is recorded as being the liable person in respect of the property for the years 2017 onwards. Revenue said LPT records for the periods for which the applicant is recorded as the liable person were provided, along with records of any correspondence which was submitted by/to the applicant, or on his behalf.
Revenue said that, upon receiving the request for submissions from this Office, it had released a number of additional records to the applicant. Revenue stated that the information about being the executor of his late mother’s estate had not been provided by the applicant when he submitted his FOI request, nor when he requested an internal review. As such, in the absence of this information, Revenue stated that it believed the applicant only sought records relating to the period which he became linked to the property in question. Revenue stated that, upon receiving the request for submissions from this Office, wherein the Investigating Officer highlighted that the applicant believed information relating to his late mother’s estate should not have been withheld under section 37(1) of the FOI Act on the basis that he was the executor of the estate in question, it released 9 additional records to the applicant, as well as releasing additional information it had originally withheld. Revenue’s position is that having released these additional records no further records exist relating to the LPT Property ID specified in the applicant’s request.
In relation to the searches carried out to locate records falling within the scope of the applicant’s request, Revenue said it conducted detailed electronic searches. As noted above, the applicant queried why no details of physical searches were provided by Revenue. In its submissions, Revenue said that its LPT Branch does not keep paper files, and as such no hard-copy searches were conducted. Revenue said that any reference to hard-copy searches in its original decision was an error. Revenue said that as all LPT files are held electronically, its searches were confined to electronic searches. Revenue said the following computer systems were searched:
• Revenue’s Integrated Business Intelligence (IBI) system, which contains property and taxpayer information,
• Revenues Integrated Taxation System (ITS), which contains property and taxpayer information as well as Revenue internal notes regarding cases and phone calls,
• Revenue’s Integrated Contacts (iC), which it said contains a copy of correspondence between Revenue and taxpayers/their representatives, notes of LPT calls, as well as certain internal Revenue correspondence regarding taxpayers and properties. Revenue said searches were conducted on the main iC system, as well as the iC archive.
Revenue said searches were manually conducted on its computer systems (listed above) using the Property ID provided by the applicant. It said all transactions recorded under the Property ID were searched, as well as any notes and correspondence items recorded under the Property ID. Revenue said the same searches were carried out using the PPSN’s of the relevant parties attached to the property for LPT, i.e. the applicant’s PPSN and the PPSN of the applicant’s late mother. Revenue said that all LPT details are contained under the relevant Property ID and/or the PPSN’s of the individuals who are attached to the Property ID. Revenue said that the only PPSN’s attached to the Property ID are that of the applicant and his late mother. Revenue said there are no further records on Revenue systems associated with the Property ID at issue.
In his submissions to this Office, the applicant said he believes Revenue has withheld records of internal emails related to his request. In light of this, the Investigating Officer reverted back to Revenue to ask whether or not it had conducted searches for internal emails related to the applicant’s request. In response, Revenue stated that in line with LPT Branch procedures all case notes and LPT correspondence are stored centrally on Revenue’s electronic systems, as outlined above, which it stated were thoroughly searched for records falling within the scope of the applicant’s request. Revenue said that having conducted these electronic searches initially, there was no indication that any further records existed, including internal email correspondence. Revenue said, having received the additional query from this Office about whether searches were carried out for internal emails falling within the scope of the applicant’s request, the relevant Revenue staff members who worked on the LPT casefile were requested to search their own internal emails for any relevant records. It said that relevant staff members conducted searches using the PPSN’s of the applicant and his late mother, as well as the Property ID and address of the property. Revenue stated that, following these searches, no further records were retrieved. In this respect, Revenue said that some of the staff members who had worked on the LPT casefile throughout the years no longer work in Revenue, and as such their emails could not be searched. However, Revenue stated there is no indication on its central electronic systems that any additional emails would exist in relation to the matter.
In relation to whether further records falling within the scope of the applicant’s request exist, Revenue stated that, having carried out the searches above, its position is that the records which have been released to the applicant comprise the entirety of the LPT records held by Revenue in relation to the property specified in the applicant’s request. I note that the applicant stated in his submissions that he believed Revenue had incorrectly confined itself to the LPT number rather than the property. In its submissions to this Office, Revenue stated that as the applicant had specifically sought “copies of the LPT records” relating to a specified property and address, its position is that the scope of his request is limited to LPT records relating to the property, as opposed to additional records relating to the property which may be held in other Revenue divisions. Revenue stated that, having carried out the searches outlined above, its position is that all LPT records relating to the property and address specified in the applicant’s request have been released to him.
Revenue stated that the only PPSN’s linked to the property for the purposes of LPT are those of the applicant and his late mother. I note in his submissions to this Office, the applicant said he believes two other parties should have been linked to the LPT Property ID since 2017. It appears he believes that further LPT records should exist relating to these parties. In relation to this point, although I am obliged to give reasons for my decision, section 25(3) of the FOI Act requires me to take all reasonable precautions in the course of a review to prevent disclosure of exempt material. This means that the extent to which I can describe the details of Revenue’s submissions in relation to other parties is limited. However, I can confirm that this Office asked Revenue about the applicant’s belief that additional parties should be linked to the LPT Property ID and that Revenue provided submissions which stated that only the applicant and his late mother are linked to the property for the purposes of LPT.
For section 15(1)(a) to apply in any case, the FOI body must have taken all reasonable steps to ascertain the whereabouts of the records sought. 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. 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.
As noted above, this review is solely concerned with Revenue’s decision on access to LPT records relating to the property in question. This review is not concerned with any other categories of records that may exist in relation to the property in question, such records relating to Capital Acquisition Tax or other matters unrelated to LPT.
The applicant claims he knows that Revenue has withheld records and said that it incorrectly restricted its searches, but he has provided no evidence to support his claims. He also suggested that this Office should request a copy of the original search results from the LPT Branch using the property ID as the search parameters, as well as request a printout of the original search results using variations of the property address provided. He said this Office should also request a list of all names of staff who carried out searches, the dates thereof, and the results thereof. The question I must consider in this case is whether Revenue has taken all reasonable steps to ascertain the whereabouts of the LPT records sought by the applicant. While the applicant has questioned the integrity of the searches Revenue said it carried out, I have no reason or evidence before me to dispute the veracity of Revenue’s submissions. In the circumstances, having regard to the information before this Office, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I am satisfied that Revenue has taken all reasonable steps to locate the LPT records sought by the applicant. I find that Revenue was justified, under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, in refusing access to further LPT records which the applicant believes ought to exist on the basis that no such 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 to refuse access to further LPT records 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