Decision
Mr. X and University College Dublin (UCD)
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-158004-T2T9B0
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-158004-T2T9B0
Published on
Whether UCD’s decision to extend the time for considering the applicant’s request was in accordance with the provisions of section 14 of the FOI Act
13 June 2025
On 6 March 2025, the applicant requested information and records related to a specified academic regulation. He stated that such records may include, but were not limited to, the academic regulation’s development, approval, amendment, or implementation.
On 4 April 2025, UCD informed the applicant that it was extending the timeframe for making a decision on his request until 2 May 2025, in accordance with section 14 of the FOI Act. On the same day, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of UCD’s decision to extend the timeframe for replying to his request.
In a decision dated 1 May 2025, UCD released one record to the applicant and said the remaining records are publicly available. This review does not concern UCD’s substantive decision on access to the records sought by the applicant.
When contacted by this Office about the time extension applied by UCD, in light of the fact that UCD had now issued a decision on his request, the applicant was asked whether he wished to withdraw his application for review or to proceed to a decision on the matter. The applicant said he wanted this review to proceed to a decision.
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 by 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.
In its submissions to this Office, UCD said that its reliance on section 14 of the FOI Act to the period for issuing its decision to the applicant was made in error. It said that, at the time the applicant’s request was due for decision the FOI Officer was on leave, and the Office was under-resourced to deal with the volume of requests on hand. UCD stated that due to this pressure, the decision maker at the time chose to extend the deadline for issuing a decision under section 14 of the Act. UCD said that when the applicant’s request was initially received it was anticipated that there would be a number of records to search and retrieve, but that following the search for records it became apparent that there was not a substantial number of records involved.
The circumstances in which an FOI body may extend the four-week period for processing a request are quite narrow and specific. Section 14 does not provide for extensions of the timeframe for considering requests on the basis of other FOI related (or any other) administrative challenges arising, nor does it provide for an extension in circumstances where an FOI Office is experiencing pressure due to staff shortages. Under section 14(1)(a), the FOI body is entitled to extend the decision making period only where the request relates to such number of records that compliance with the four-week timeframe set out in section 13 is not reasonably possible.
The provisions of section 14 are very specific and do not allow for the extension of the period for consideration of a request in the circumstances set out by UCD. Accordingly, while my findings in this case can have no tangible benefit for the applicant given that UCD has already issued its substantive decision on his request, 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, in his submissions to this Office, the applicant expressed his concerns about UCD’s use of section 14 to extend the time for issuing decisions more generally. As noted above, this review is solely concerned with UCD’s decision to extend the time for making a decision on the applicant’s FOI request in this case. However, I recommend that UCD have due regard to the limited circumstances when section 14 of the Act can be used when considering its future use of this section of the Act.
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