Decision
Mr X and University College Dublin
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-158001-F4N0S0
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-158001-F4N0S0
Published on
Whether UCD’s decision to extend the timeframe for considering the applicant’s request was in accordance with the provisions of section 14 of the FOI Act
19 May 2025
In a request dated 6 March 2025, the applicant made an FOI request to UCD for records relating to the Taught Programme Transfer and Re-Admission policy. In particular, the applicant said he was seeking records related to the design, approval, and roll-out of the policy and any changes thereto.
On 3 April 2025, UCD informed the applicant that it was extending the timeframe, under section 14 of the FOI Act, for making a decision on his request until 2 May 2025. On 4 April 2025, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of UCD’s decision to extend the timeframe for replying to his request.
On 1 May 2025, UCD wrote to the applicant referring to sections 12(1)(b) and 15(1)(b) of the Act and said that his request did not contain sufficient particulars to allow UCD to identify the records sought by the applicant. UCD asked the applicant to clarify what records he is seeking. In this letter, UCD also informed the applicant that it had incorrectly advised him that the timeframe to process his request had been extended under section 14 of the Act.
In submissions to this Office, UCD said that it should not have applied the time extension under section 14 in this case and that it had separately engaged with the applicant over the scope of his request. As such, UCD said it was no longer applying a time extension for processing the request under section 14 of the Act. The Investigating Officer contacted the applicant about UCD’s incorrect use of section 14 and asked if he wished to withdraw his application for review given UCD’s revised position. The applicant said he does not wish to withdraw and made submissions in the matter.
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 and the applicant. 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 timeframe 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.
Before I consider UCD’s decision under section 14 of the Act, I wish to clarify that this review is not concerned with UCD’s decision on access to the records sought by the applicant. As noted above, this review is solely concerned with UCD’s application of section 14 of the Act. Should the applicant be unhappy with UCD’s substantive decision on his request, he may request an internal review of that decision and review by this Office in due course.
A review by this Office is regarded as “de novo”, which essentially means that the review is based on the circumstances and the law as they pertain at the time of review and is not confined to the basis upon which the FOI body reached its decision. As stated above, in its submissions to this Office, as well as in its correspondence to the applicant, UCD said that it applied section 14 of the Act incorrectly and that it no longer wishes to rely on section 14 of the Act to extend the timeframe for replying to the applicant’s request. In the circumstances, and while my findings in this case can have no tangible benefit for the applicant, given UCD’s stated position that it no longer wishes to rely on section 14 of the Act, 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.
Finally, while not part of this review, I understand that UCD has written to the applicant to clarify what records his is seeking in this case. If he has not already done so, I suggest the applicant engage with UCD over the scope of his request.
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