Decision
Mr Z and Limerick City and County Council
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-154580-R0M6H1
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-154580-R0M6H1
Published on
Whether the Council was justified in refusing, under section 15(1)(c) of the FOI Act, the applicant’s request for information relating to derelict sites on the ground that granting the request would cause a substantial and unreasonable interference with or disruption of its work
7 April 2025
In a request dated 1 August 2024, the applicant sought access to the following:
“All details/information concerning properties in Bruff, Co. Limerick which have been or have been proposed or intended to be proposed by Limerick City & County Council for inclusion on the Derelict Sites Register and any properties been currently considered under the Derelict Sites Act 1990 and any properties on which notices under the Derelict Sites Act 1990 were issued or served.
All information relating to and detailing the process and criteria for selecting properties for possible inclusion on the Derelict Sites Register.
Any representations made by third parties in relation to any properties and any consultations between the council and third parties including correspondence /communication and minutes of any meetings/conversations where such properties were discussed.
Minutes of any council meetings where any of the properties were discussed including any meetings of the Kilmallock/Cappamore Municipal District and any briefing documents prepared in advance or following such meeting and/or any communication in any form with councillors past & present and any representation made by them in relation to any such property.
Details of any properties which were initially deemed suitable for inclusion in the Derelict Sites Register but were not subsequently proceeded with and the reason for this.”
On 9 August 2024, the Council wrote to the applicant and said that the scope of his request is very broad and that it may incur a search and retrieval fee if it is estimated to take more than five hours of work to process. The Council suggested that the applicant should consider narrowing his request by specifying a timeframe for the records he was seeking. It also provided the applicant with hyperlinks to its Derelict Sites webpage and to the minutes of the Council’s meetings which are available on its website. On 13 August 2024, the applicant responded to the Council saying he believes only a handful of properties in Bruff were considered/proposed or were actually on the Derelict Sites Register. The applicant narrowed the scope of his request to the period January 2019-January 2024 and indicated he was willing to pay a search and retrieval fee. On 20 August 2024, the Council wrote back to the applicant to say that it still considered his request to be voluminous as it would entail examining in excess of 35 files. In an effort to assist the applicant, the Council offered to provide him with a table listing open and closed derelict site cases in Bruff for the period 2019-2024. It said it could also outline what notices were served in each case.
On 30 August 2024, the Council refused his request under section 15(1)(c) of the FOI Act. On 12 September 2024, the applicant requested an internal review of the Council’s decision, which the Council subsequently affirmed. On 13 December 2024, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of the Council’s decision.
During the course of this review, the Investigating Officer provided the applicant with details of the Council’s submissions to this Office and invited the applicant to make submissions in the matter, which he duly did.
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 the Council and the applicant. 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 refusing the applicant’s request under section 15(1)(c) of the FOI Act.
In his submissions to this Office, the applicant said the reason for his request is to established why some derelict sites were recorded on the Derelict Sites Register while other derelict sites in worse condition were not recorded on the register. Section 13(4) of the FOI Act provides that, subject to the Act, in deciding whether to grant or refuse an FOI request, any reason that the requester gives for the request and any belief or opinion of the FOI body as to the reasons for the request shall be disregarded. Thus, while certain provisions of the Act implicitly render the motive of the requester relevant, as a general rule, the actual or perceived reasons for a request must be disregarded in deciding whether to grant or refuse an access request under the FOI Act. As such, this Office cannot have regard to the reasons given by the applicant for seeking access to the records concerned in considering whether the Council was justified in refusing the request.
Essentially, the Council’s position is that in order to process the applicant’s request, it would need to examine 35 files and that this would take approximately 50 hours. The applicant does not accept the Council’s position and contends there are only a small number of properties in the location that are on the Derelict Sites Register.
Section 15(1)(c) and 15(4)
Section 15(1)(c) provides that an FOI body may refuse to grant a request where it considers that granting the request would, by reason of the number or nature of the records concerned or the nature of the information concerned, require the retrieval and examination of such number of records or an examination of such kind of records concerned as to cause a substantial and unreasonable interference with, or disruption of, work of the body. It should be noted that a refusal may be made on the basis of a disruption of the work of a particular functional area, and not necessarily on the basis of disruption of work of the body as a whole.
However, section 15(4) provides that a request cannot be refused under section 15(1)(c) unless the body has first assisted, or offered to assist, the requester in amending the request so that it no longer falls to be refused under that section. As such, before I consider whether the Council was justified in refusing the request under section 15(1)(c), I must first consider whether it complied with the provisions of section 15(4) before doing so.
The FOI Act is silent on the precise nature or level of the assistance to be offered under section 15(4). This Office takes the view that before a body can refuse a request under section 15(1)(c), the body must first have provided reasonable assistance to the requester in amending the request, or have offered to provide assistance in cases where the requester is not willing to amend the original request, in order to comply with the requirements of section 15(4). On the question of what constitutes reasonable assistance, this Office considers that the level or nature of the assistance to be provided can vary significantly from case to case and will depend on the particular facts and circumstances of the case. It will often also depend on the willingness of the parties to engage in meaningful discussion on what might be acceptable in the circumstances.
Having considered the Council’s correspondence with the applicant before it refused his request, I am satisfied that the Council did offer to assist the applicant in narrowing his request in order to avoid its refusal under section 15(1)(c). As noted above, the Council wrote to the applicant on 9 August 2024 and 20 August 2024 outlining its view that his request is very broad. While the applicant agreed to narrow the scope of his request to the period from January 2019 to January 2024, the Council informed him that his request remained voluminous and offered to provide him with a table containing some of the information he requested. I understand the applicant did not respond to this offer. Having regard to the correspondence outlined above, I am satisfied that the Council complied with the provisions of section 15(4) of the Act. I will now consider whether the Council was justified in refusing the request under section 15(1)(c) of the Act.
The Investigating Officer asked the Council if the applicant’s approximation of twelve sites being relevant to his request was accurate and how did the Council conclude that this would involve the examination of over 35 files. The Council responded by saying that the estimation of 35 files was provided accurately by the technician responsible for inspecting each site. It stated that there is a lengthy process involved in recording and processing a derelict site. It said when a site is identified as derelict, a case file is opened physically and electronically. The Council said that attempts are made to engage with the owner of the site. It said if attempts aren’t successful and a resolution has not been reached, after a period of time the site is entered on the Derelict Sites Register. The Council said that not all open cases are recorded on the Register and that this will explain the difference between the number of files held by the Council and the number on the Register that the public can view.
The Investigating Officer asked the Council why the examination of 35 files would cause a substantial and unreasonable interference with or disruption of the Council’s work. The Council responded by saying that, due to the broad nature of the applicant’s request, staff would have to review each file individually. It said that this could take approximately 1.5 hours per file, coming to a total estimate of 50 hours of work. The Council noted that the applicant’s request contains a number of different and separate parts and said that the full caseload would have to be searched to identify any relevant files and then each of the files would have be fully reviewed for each separate element of the request. The Council said that the greatest amount of time would be spent extracting the requested information from the files. It said that each of these files contain personal information which would have to be redacted. The Council added that input from all four members of the Derelict Sites Team would be required to ensure that the response is prepared in accordance with the statutory deadlines. The Council said it did not issue a search and retrieval fee to the applicant. It said it offered to discuss the request with the applicant, but it said the applicant did not take up this offer.
In regard to its offer to the applicant to provide a table containing information about derelict sites, the Council said that table was not created by it as the applicant did not respond to the offer. The Council said that this table did not exist before the applicant’s request and would have been created specifically in answer to his request. The Council said that it would take approximately two hours to compile the information in the table.
The Investigating Officer asked the Council whether the information sought could be extracted electronically in line with the provision under section 17(4) of the FOI Act, which provides that if the requested data is contained in more than one record held on an electronic device, the FOI body shall take reasonable steps to search for and extract the records to which the request relates. The Council responded by saying that hard copy records would be involved in granting this request and the files would have to be individually examined and then the relevant information would need to be manually extracted.
As noted above, the Investigating Officer provided the applicant with details of the Council’s submissions and gave him the opportunity to respond, which he duly did. The applicant said the reason he made his request was to establish why some sites were recorded on the Derelict Sites Register and others were not. The applicant stated that the Council enlisted the assistance of the local Tidy Town group and he believes that this informed the Council’s decision-making. He said that the information in his request would confirm or deny this belief. The applicant rejected the Council’s claim that granting his request would involve searching in excess of 35 files. He reiterated that Bruff is a small area and that there would not be 35 sites considered to be derelict, or nearly derelict. The applicant said that all the information sought by him is necessary in order for him to examine the criteria, the procedure, the possibility of third party representations or interference and to establish if the procedure followed or adopted by the Council was fair. He said that the Freedom of Information Act 2014 exists so that public bodies should make information available about their activities and the criteria or the procedure they follow to make their decisions.
My Analysis
After considering the submissions of both the Council and the applicant, I find that the Council was justified in refusing this request under section 15(1)(c) of the Act.
In its submissions, the Council outlined why granting this request would involve substantial interference with its work. It should be noted that a refusal may be made on the basis of a disruption of the work of a particular functional area within the FOI body, and not necessarily on the basis of disruption of work of the body as a whole. The Council stated that the broad and multifaceted nature of the applicant’s request would involve all four staff from the Derelict Sites Team searching for and extracting the relevant information which could take approximately 50 hours in total. Given the impact this would have on the Derelict Sites Team I am satisfied that the Council’s estimate of the work involved in processing the applicant’s request falls within the parameters of section 15(1)(c) of the Act.
While the applicant may be correct in stating that the records he is seeking pertain to a small area and number of properties, the Council has stated that the search for the requested information is not as straightforward as the applicant has implied. In his submissions, the applicant said there are not 35 derelict/almost derelict sites in Bruff. I understand there are multiple records per site and that the number of files does not equal the number of sites, but related to the number of files from the different stages of consideration of whether a site is deemed derelict or not. In my view, the Council’s argument that the applicant’s request is very broad is reasonable given the nature of his request. While the applicant contends there are only a small number of relevant properties, it seems to me that his request for all information concerning those properties, for all information relating to the process and criteria for selecting properties, for any consultations, minutes of meetings, briefing documents, etc. would require an examination of all relevant files held by the Council. Furthermore, as the Council noted it would need to make appropriate redactions to any personal information of other parties that is contained in any records that it might release.
Section 15(1)(c) of the FOI Act is an express acknowledgement of the fact that there are limits to the resources a public body must expend on processing requests. The FOI Act seeks to strike a balance between ensuring access to records to the greatest extent possible and managing the administrative burden on FOI bodies in dealing with requests that require a significant allocation of time and resources. In the circumstances, having taken into consideration the submissions made by both the Council and the applicant, I accept that the time and resources that would be required to retrieve and examine the relevant records would cause a substantial and unreasonable interference with, and disruption of, the work of the Derelict Sites Team within the Council.
It remains open to the applicant to submit a refined request to the Council. If he wishes to do so, I would strongly suggest that both parties enter into meaningful discussions as to how such a refined request might be framed with a view to meeting the aims of the applicant to the maximum extent possible whilst simultaneously ensuing that the Council has the capacity to process the request. The applicant might, for example, consider the Council’s offer to provide certain information in tabular form in the first instance.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby affirm the Council’s decision to refuse the applicant’s request under section 15(1)(c) 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.
____________________