Decision
Ms. X & The Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council (the Council)
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-161778-K3L3K3
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-161778-K3L3K3
Published on
Whether the Council was justified, under section 27 of the FOI Act, in its decision to refuse the applicant’s request as voluminous after it estimated the cost of search and retrieval fees was €600, which it deemed to exceed the maximum amount of fees chargeable under the Act
8 December 2025
On 9 July 2025, the applicant made a multi part request for information relating to social housing waiting lists, choice-based lettings, and other housing related matters, including housing information for people with disabilities.
On 21 July 2025, the Council notified the applicant that it had estimated it would take a minimum of 30 hours to efficiently complete the search and retrieval work on her request. The Council said the prescribed amount chargeable for each such hour is €20 per hour, resulting in an overall fee of €600. The Council said, as this exceeds the maximum fees payable, the applicant’s request is voluminous, and it will be necessary for the applicant to refine her request. The Council invited the applicant to contact it if it could be of assistance to her. It also directed the applicant to reports available on its website.
On 21 July 2025, the applicant wrote to the Council disputing its claim that her request is voluminous and said this is because the Council does not publish the information she requested. The applicant referred to similar information that she said is publicly available from another Local Authority. She questioned how the Council can justify charging a fee for information that is publicly available from another Council. The Council considered this correspondence as a request for an internal review of its decision to charge fees in respect of the applicant’s request. On 11 August 2025, the Council affirmed its decision and said every effort had been made to reduce the hours involved in responding to the request and no further reduction in hours could be achieved.
On 25 August 2025, the applicant applied to this Office for a review the Council’s decision to charge fees in relation to her request. The applicant claimed the information is of national importance and should be published on a regular basis.
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 Council 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 the Council was justified, under section 27 of the FOI Act, in refusing the applicant’s request on the basis that its estimated search and retrieval fee of €600 exceeded the prescribed maximum amount of fees chargeable under the Act, and on the basis of which it decided the request is voluminous.
In her application to this Office, the applicant said that the information she is seeking should be publicly available and is unhappy with the Council’s decision to charge fees for information that she believes should be published on a regular basis. 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. Consequently, we have no role in determining whether the Council ought to publish the information sought by the applicant.
Section 27
Section 27(1) of the FOI Act provides for the mandatory charging by FOI bodies for the estimated cost of the search for, and retrieval and copying (SRC) of, records sought on foot of an FOI request where the estimated SRC fee is equal to or greater than the prescribed minimum amount (currently €101).
Under section 27(2), the search for and retrieval of records includes time spent by the body in;
• a. determining whether it holds the information requested,
• b. locating the information or documents containing the information,
• c. retrieving such information or documents,
• d. extracting the information from the files, documents, electronic or other information sources containing both it and other material not relevant to the request, and
• e. preparing a schedule specifying the records for consideration for release.
The SRC charge is calculated at a prescribed amount per hour in respect of time that was spent, or ought, in the opinion of the body, to have been spent in carrying out the search for and retrieval of the records efficiently (section 27(3) refers). This amount is currently set at €20 per hour under the Freedom of Information Act 2014 (Fees) (No. 2) Regulations 2014 [S.I. No. 531 of 2014] (the Regulations).
Subsection (3)(c) provides that, subject to subsection (12), the total amount of a charge under subsection (1) shall not exceed such amount as stands prescribed for the time being as the appropriate maximum amount for search and retrieval and copying (the prescribed maximum amount, which is currently €500).
Under subsection (5), where the estimated search and retrieval cost is likely to be equal to or in excess of the prescribed minimum amount, the FOI body must charge a deposit of at least 20% of that cost and the process of searching for and retrieving the records sought shall not commence until the deposit has been paid. Subsection 7(a) provides that where subsection (5) applies, the body must, if requested by the requester, assist the requester to amend or limit the request in order to reduce or eliminate the charges that arise or are likely to arise under section 27(1).
Under section 27(12), an FOI body is allowed to refuse to process a request where the amount of a SRC charge exceeds, or is likely to exceed, a prescribed amount, currently €700. This is referred to as the overall ceiling limit.
The Central Policy Unit of the Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform has published a Guidance Note on Fees and Charges under the Act. The Note states there is a cap on the amount of SRC fees that can be charged of €500 (“appropriate maximum amount”). This means that even in a case where the SRC associated with the records that are actually released amounts to €650, the requester can only be charged €500. The Note continues, there is a further upper limit on estimated SRC fees of €700 called the “overall ceiling limit” above which an FOI body can refuse to process a request, unless the requester is prepared to refine the request to bring the SRC fees below the limit. Alternatively, an FOI body can decide to process such a request but full SRC fees will apply (no benefit of appropriate maximum ceiling available if SRC attaching to the records actually released exceeds €700). There is a requirement under Section 27(12) that, before a request can be refused on the basis that the estimated SRC exceeds €700, the requester must be given the opportunity to refine his/her request so that it comes within the overall ceiling limit.
The Investigating Officer invited the Council to make submissions justifying its decision to refuse the applicant’s request on the basis that it was voluminous because the SRC charge was estimated to be €600.
In its submissions, the Council said notice in writing for payment of a deposit/ charge was given to the applicant not later than two weeks after receipt of the request. The Council said the applicant did not ask for assistance in amending or limiting the request in order to reduce or eliminate the SRC deposit/ charge. The Council provided copies of its correspondence with the applicant regarding this. It said the requester was informed on 21 July 2025 that it would take a minimum of 30 hours to complete the search and retrieval work on her request which would result in a fee of €600. It said that, as this exceeded the maximum prescribed fee, she was informed that the request was voluminous and would need to be refined. It said she replied to this correspondence but did not refine the request and challenged the charging of fees.
It is important to note that the provision for the charging of SRC fees in accordance with the provisions of section 27 is mandatory. However, in this case it seems to me that the Council erred in its application of section 27 of the Act when dealing with the applicant’s FOI request. As noted above the Council estimated the cost of search and retrieval fees at €600 and said the request was therefore voluminous.
There is a cap on the amount of SRC fees that can be charged of €500 (“appropriate maximum amount”). This means that even in a case where the SRC associated with the records that are actually released amounts to €600, the requester can only be charged €500. While it seems unlikely that the applicant would have opted to pay the €500 SRC fee, she was not provided with the opportunity to pay the fee or a deposit. She was simply told her request is voluminous.
Section 27(12) of the Act only allows an FOI body to refuse to process a request where the amount of the SRC charge exceeds, or is likely to exceed, the overall ceiling limit prescribed (currently €700) provided certain requirements are met. As the Council estimated the fee at €600, it is clear that section 27(12) of the Act does not apply in this case. In any event, I note the Council has not sought to rely on section 27(12) of the Act.
FOI bodies are also entitled to refuse requests where they consider that granting the request would cause a substantial and unreasonable interference with or disruption of their work, including disruption of work in a particular functional area (section 15(1)(c) refers). While there is a certain amount of overlap between section 27(12) and 15(1)(c), it is important to note that they are entirely separate, stand alone, provisions which operate independently of each other. While the Council said it considered the applicant’s to be voluminous it did not make any reference to section 15(1)(c) of the Act, nor is it evident to me that it intended to refuse the request under section 15(1)(c).
The Council erred by stating the estimated fee (€600) exceeded the maximum amount chargeable and was therefore voluminous. In order to have applied this section correctly, the Council ought to have notified the applicant that the maximum amount chargeable was €500 and requested a deposit of not less than 20% of this amount (€100). Instead of charging the prescribed maximum amount of €500, the Council informed the applicant her request is voluminous and did not request the appropriate deposit. While I note the applicant is disputing the appropriateness of the fee sought by Council, she was nonetheless not given the opportunity to proceed with her request and pay the estimated fee.
It is evident from the correspondence between the applicant and the Council and the Council’s submissions to this Office, that it conflated different parts of section 27 of the Act which resulted in the misapplication of the fees regime under the Act. Having considered the matter carefully, I find the Council was not justified in refusing the applicant’s request on the basis that its estimate of €600 made the request voluminous, and that its decision to refuse the applicant’s request under section 27 of the Act was not justified in circumstances where it misapplied section 27 of the Act.
While I note the applicant disputes the fact that the Council has sought to levy SRC fees in the first instance, given my finding that it misapplied section 27 of the Act, I believe the most appropriate course of action in the circumstances, is to annul the Council’s decision to refuse the applicant’s request. The effect of this is that the Council must consider the applicant’s request afresh. While I have not considered the appropriateness of the Council’s €600 estimate in this case, it seems to me that the applicant’s request is quite broad and detailed. Before processing the applicant’s request afresh, I suggest the Council contact the applicant to see if it is possible to reach an agreement on the scope of her request that might reduce or eliminate the search and retrieval fees estimated by the Council. The applicant will have a right to an internal review and a review by this Office if she is not satisfied with the Council’s fresh decision.
For the benefit of the Council, I wish to add that the relevant provisions in the FOI Act relating to the charging of SRC fees are quite complex. They are also subject to strict requirements and timeframes which can prove challenging for FOI bodies to meet, given the complexity of the issues to be considered. However, comprehensive guidance is available on the applicability of the provisions, both on our website at www.oic.ie and on the website of the Central Policy Unit of the Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform at www.foi.gov.ie. I expect the Council to make the relevant staff aware of the guidance available and to have regard to it when processing such requests in future.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby annul the Council’s decision. I find the Council was not justified in its decision to refuse the applicant’s request as it erred in its application of section 27 of the FOI Act. I direct it to consider the applicant’s request afresh.
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