Decision
Mr Z and the Department of Justice
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-160995-K2L0Q5
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-160995-K2L0Q5
Published on
Whether the Department was justified in its decision to extend the period for considering the applicant’s FOI request under section 14 of the FOI Act
23 October 2025
This request concerns access to records held by International Protection Accommodation Service (IPAS) whose functions were transferred from the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth to the Minister for Justice on 1 May 2025.
In a request dated 3 July 2025, the applicant requested a list of currently active accommodation provided under the International Protection Accommodation Service (IPAS) within the entire County of Limerick. On 28 July 2025, the Department wrote to the applicant informing him that it was necessary to extend the period for considering his request by four weeks under section 14 of the Act. It said it would make every effort to respond to his request no later than 29 August 2025. On 29 July 2025, the applicant sought a review by this Office of the Department’s decision. I understand the Department subsequently issued its decision on the applicant’s request on 12 August 2025. The Department’s substantive decision on the applicant’s request is not the subject of this review.
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 correspondence between this Office and both the Department and the applicant on the matter. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
This review is concerned solely with whether the Department’s decision to extend the time frame for considering the applicant’s request was in accordance with the provisions of section 14 of the FOI Act.
The Department indicated in its letter to the applicant of 28 July 2025 that it was relying on section 14(1)(b) of the Act to extend the time frame for considering the applicant’s request. Section 14(1)(b) 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:
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.
In its submissions to this Office the Department said, in 2025, IPAS has received over 150 Freedom of Information requests. It said, since the transfer of IPAS functions on 1 May 2025, it has experienced a significant increase in the number of requests received. The Department said, between January and April 2025, IPAS received 42 FOI requests, and since 1 May and September 2025, these figures rose sharply with 108 additional FOI requests received. The Department said, this represents a doubling of FOI volumes over a five-month period for IPAS. The Department said the majority of these requests focus on IPAS accommodation, which disproportionately affects the accommodation and procurement teams within IPAS. The Department said that in an attempt to manage this volume, the Unit has relied on 14(1)(b) extensions to extend a number of the requests.
The Department said the information requested by the applicant is held in a central accommodation register with the IPAS Unit of the Department and the record considered by the decision maker was an extract from this register.
The Department said the vast majority of these requests require its accommodation and procurement teams to carry out extensive searches to establish what records (if any) exist, while all associated administration and decision making is carried out by the IP Information Access Team. The Department said the significant increase in requests meant that more time was required for the team to carry out proper search and retrieval and more time again for the Information Access Team to process the records. It said while the records relating to the applicant’s FOI request did not require a substantial search process, the Information Access Team work through the requests in order of receipt, so the applicant’s FOI request joined a queue for the search and retrieval. It said it was on this basis that the FOI request required an extension and the decision for same was regrettably delayed.
The Investigating Officer asked the Department for further details about the number of requests it had at the time it received the applicant’s request, that relate to IPAS accommodation in general and specifically in relation to County Limerick. In response, the Department said it received 102 requests this year seeking information on actual or rumoured IPAS accommodation centres and that it received 3 requests relating to accommodation in Limerick. It said it is important to note that this information is all held by the same team, regardless of the location of the property and, as such, the location of the accommodation is irrelevant in terms of the Department’s capacity to carry out searches as it is the same staff who are searching the same areas for relevant records.
The circumstances in which an FOI body may extend the four-week period for processing a request are quite narrow and specific.
In essence, the Department’s position is that IPAS received a significant increase in the number of requests made to it relating to accommodation provision following on from the transfer of IPAS functions from another department. This increase, it said, has created a backlog of requests that it said it is processing in the order in which it they are received. In this case, and in others, it relied on section 14(1)(b) to extend the time frame for considering the request to allow it to respond to the volume of requests relating to accommodation. It acknowledged that the number of records in this case did not require a substantial search and retrieval exercise, but the existence of other requests relating to the same subject matter and processed by the same team caused the delay in its response.
The FOI Act provides no guidance on the number of requests that might be involved before an extension can be appropriately applied. Therefore, each case must be considered on its merits based on the particular facts and circumstances. Nevertheless, the provision is clear that a decision to extend the period must be based on the number of requests on hand, that relate to the same record(s) and/or corresponding information, which were made before the request at issue and on which a decision has yet to issue.
It is evident from the Department’s submissions, the applicant’s request did not relate to such number of requests for the same record that it was necessary to extend the time frame for considering his request, as the Department only identified three similar requests for the records relating to IPAS accommodation in County Limerick. However, it seems evident from the Department’s submissions that it has received a significant number of requests for information corresponding to the applicant’s request, i.e. for records about IPAS accommodation in general. I acknowledge this has been challenging for the team that processes these requests. However, the Department provided no information about how many requests for similar information it had on hand that were made prior to the request under review. Nor did it provide any details of the number of related requests it had yet to issue a decision on. Without these details it is not possible to gauge whether the Department’s decision to extend the time for processing the applicant’s request was justified on the basis that it had such a number of requests for corresponding information that it had not issued a decision on yet, such that it was not possible to process the applicant’s request within the four week timeframe prescribed in section 13 of the Act.
Having considered the Department’s submissions, the fact remains that it had only 3 requests relating to similar information for County Limerick. In the absence of specific details about number of similar requests that were outstanding at the time of its receipt of the applicant’s request, I am not satisfied that an extension was warranted in this case.
Accordingly, while my findings in this case can have no tangible benefit for the applicant given that the Department has already issued its substantive decision on his request, I find that the Department’s decision to extend the period for considering the applicant’s request was not in accordance with the provisions of section 14(1)(b) of the FOI Act.
Finally, while I acknowledge the significant pressures facing the IPAS team in managing the volume of FOI requests it receives, and note its process of working through these requests in order of receipt, it seems to me that the Department could consider adopting a different approach to enable it to deal with relatively straight forward requests, such as the applicant’s request in this case, within the four weeks provided in section 13 of the Act. This might help reduce the number of occasions where the Department utilises section 14 of the Act to extend the deadline for processing requests.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby annul the Department’s decision to extend the period for considering the applicant’s request under section 14(1)(b) 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