Decision
Ms X & Tipperary County Council (the Council)
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-160103-R1V5S9
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-160103-R1V5S9
Published on
Whether the Council was justified, under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, in refusing access to records relating to the applicant, on the ground that no records exist or can be found, after having taken all reasonable steps to locate the records sought
21 October 2025
The Local Authority Services National Training Group (LASNTG) is a Local Authority Shared Service that coordinates the development and delivery of training for all staff involved in the provision of services within Roads, Water, Environment, Planning and Fire Services. Training is delivered through five Regional Training Centres (RTC). The applicant was previously employed at one of these RTCs.
On 17 April 2025, the applicant emailed the Local Authorities Services National Training Group (LASNTG) section of Tipperary County Council (the Council), stating that under GDPR she wished to make a data subject access request. In her email the applicant said she commenced working at a named training centre in September 2000. On 1 May 2025, the applicant emailed the Council with further details relating to her request and said she had received records held by her previous employer. The applicant said the named training centre she previously worked at is under the remit of the Water Services National Training Group (WSNTG).
While the applicant stated that she wished to make a data subject access request under the GDPR legislation, it appears the Council mistakenly processed the applicant’s request as a freedom of information request. On 14 May 2025, the Council refused the applicant’s request under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, on the basis that no records relating to her request existed or could be found. The Council stated that the training centre referred to in the applicant’s request is not under the remit of LASNTG (formerly WSNTG). It stated that LASNTG is responsible for the coordination, development and delivery of specialist training across the local authority sector as a national shared service. Additionally, it said that in fulfilling its mandate, LASNTG utilises a comprehensive infrastructural network anchored by regional training centres (RTC). For the purpose of facilitating the proper management and operation of an RTC, the Council stated that a host local authority acts as a contractor to manage and operate a centre on behalf of each RTC’s participation members. The Council identified the relevant host authority in respect of the training centre identified by the applicant in her request and outlined that this named Local Authority is therefore responsible for appointing a manager and necessary staffing for the training centre identified by the applicant in her request. Furthermore, the Council stated that all RTC’s operate under the remit of their respective Management Committees, and in the case of the training centre referred to by the applicant, the Council outlined the three relevant local authorities whose representatives are appointed to this committee.
On 9 June 2025, the applicant requested an internal review of the Council’s decision. She said she was seeking all data in her name from the period September 2000 to August 2009, to include any reports she previously requested from the Chairperson of the LASNTG. On 26 June 2025, the Council affirmed its original decision. It said the Council does not hold or retain the records of the training centre referred to in the applicant’s request, as that would be a function of its host authority- which it identified- and the training centre. On the same day, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of the Council’s decision. The applicant said she believed records should exist, as representatives from the relevant Local Authority named by the applicant, the training centres lead authority, and from the training centres Management Committee, sat on the WSNTG board and regular reporting and meetings at all levels took place to include special subgroups.
During the course of this review, the Investigating Officer provided the applicant with details of the Council’s submissions wherein it outlined the searches undertaken to locate the records sought and its reasons for concluding that no records exist or could be found. The Investigating Officer invited the applicant to make submissions on the matter, which she 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 and to the submissions made by both the Council and the applicant during the course of this review. 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 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, in refusing access to the records sought relating to the applicant on the basis that no such records exist or can be found.
Before I address the substantive matters arising, I wish to make a number of preliminary comments.
First, I wish 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. This means we have no role in examining actions taken by the Council or any Committee of the Council during the timeframe outlined in the applicant’s request.
Second, section 13(4) of the 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.
Section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act provides for the refusal of a request where the records sought do not exist or cannot be found after all reasonable steps to ascertain their whereabouts have been taken. My role in a case such as this is to review the decision of the FOI body and to decide whether that decision was justified. This means that I must have regard to the evidence available to the decision maker and the reasoning used by the decision maker in arriving at their decision and also must assess the adequacy of the searches conducted by the FOI body in looking for relevant records. The evidence in “search ” cases generally consists of the steps actually taken to search for the records along with miscellaneous and other information about the record management practices of the FOI body, insofar as those practices relate to the records in question.
In its submissions to this Office, the Council identified a named Local Authority which it said it believed to be the relevant FOI Body which may hold records relating to the applicant’s request, due to the fact that this named Local Authority is the host authority for the training centre which the applicant specified in her request. The Council stated that the LASNTG has no remit in the managing of the training centre as this is a function of the Centre Manager who reports to the Management Committee. It said the training centre which the applicant specified in her request operates within a specified Local Authority’s remit and complies with that Local Authority’s policies and procedures, including its records management policy. As such, the Council indicated that it believed the named Local Authority it had identified was the FOI Body which the applicant’s FOI request should be directed to.
The Council said that it does not hold records relating to the applicant’s request as it is not a function of Tipperary County Council to hold records of other Local Authorities functions, including the training centre specified by the applicant. Despite this fact, the Council said that, in the interest of completeness, it carried out searches for records falling within the scope of the applicant’s request on its electronic systems in Tipperary County Council, and found no record of the applicant, nor any records relating to her request. It stated that searches were carried out on its Electronic Email system, its Archive Records, and all Shared Electronic drives, and that no records relating to the applicant’s request were found. Furthermore, the Council stated that a search was carried out by Tipperary County Council’s IT Section for emails utilising a selection of key words relevant to the applicant’s request. The Council stated that LASNTG’s archives were also checked, and no record of the applicant was found. The Council said that the only records it holds relating to the applicant is her FOI/Data Access request and the subsequent replies that issued to her.
The Council also said that as the Local Authority responsible for the LASNTG, it had engaged with its IT Section to conduct key word searches on LASNTG systems for any records relating to the applicant’s request. The Council said that these searches did not locate any records relating to the applicant’s request. It also stated that LASNTG conducted searches of its archival records for personnel correspondence from the applicant, or any records relating to the applicant’s request such as the workload of the training centres for the specific training centre specified in her request, and no records were found. Finally, the Council stated that LASNTG searched its electronic shared drives for any records relating to the applicant’s request and no records were found. The Council said all records, including email correspondence, are kept in accordance with its Record Management Policy and Procedures and the National Retention Policy for Local Authority Records. It said that records no longer required in accordance with the Records Management Policy are Destroyed or Archived. The Council described the process for deleting emails that are no longer required to be retained. In relation to the Chairperson of WSNTG/LASNTG who the applicant referenced in her original request, the Council said that the individual had retired a number of years ago and that his Secretary of WSNTG/LASNTG would never hold any information or records regarding the subject of the applicant’s request, or any other matter pertaining to the internal operation of a training centre, as this would be a matter solely for the host authority of the training centre. As such, the Council said the named individual would never have held any records falling within the scope of the applicant’s request. The searches described by the Council included the name of the applicant, the Chairperson and the RTC in question.
In conclusion, the Council stated that it has conducted detailed searches of both the Council systems and the LASNTG systems for any records falling within the scope of the applicant’s request, and no records were located. The Council stated that, in its opinion, no records exist relating to the applicant’s request within Tipperary County Council as it is not the relevant Local Authority which holds records relating to the training centre she has specified in her request, which it stated operates within another named Local Authority’s remit.
As noted above, details of the Council’s submissions were provided to the applicant. In her submissions to this Office, the applicant referred to reports she prepared, to reporting arrangements within the RTC where she worked, and to reporting to the WSNTG Committee.
In light of this, the Investigating Officer queried with the Council whether it held any records relating to such reports. The Council stated that in the past the LASNTG, previously the WSNTG, would likely have held the reports the applicant has referenced. However, the Council stated that as the reports referenced by the applicant date back to circa 2000-2009, records of the type requested from this timeframe would no longer be held by the Council as they would have been destroyed in line with its record retention policy. The Council said records of the type requested by the applicant i.e. reports and meeting minutes, are retained for 1 year if current, and 2 years if non-current, after which time the records are destroyed. Therefore, the Council stated that in relation to the second part of the applicant’s request for records of any reports or meetings submitted by the regional training centre to the WSTNG, these records no longer exist as any such records from 2000-2009 would have been deleted in line with its record retention policy.
In summary, it is the Council’s position, having conducted detailed searches, that no records relating to the applicant’s request exist or can be found. In relation to part 1 of the applicant’s request i.e. for records relating to her employment and dismissal, the Council have stated that the LASNTG (formerly the WSNTG) would never have held records of this kind. It stated that a Secretary of WSNTG/LASNTG would never hold any information regarding a dismissal, injunction, or any other matter pertaining to the internal operation of a training centre, as this would be a matter solely for the host authority of the training centre. As such, the Council stated it believes if any records exist in relation to part 1 of the applicant’s request, these records would be held by the host authority of the training centre in question. In relation to part 2 of the applicant’s request i.e. for reports submitted by the training centre to the WSNTG during the years 2000-2009, the Council have stated that it would likely have held records of this type previously, however, it said that any such records would no longer exist as they would have been destroyed in line with the Council’s record retention and deletion policies, which provide for destruction of this type of record after 2 years.
It is important to note that the FOI Act does not require absolute certainty as to the existence or location of records, as situations can arise where records are lost or simply cannot be found. What the FOI Act requires is that the public body concerned takes all reasonable steps to locate relevant records. Furthermore, it is open to this Office to find that an FOI body has satisfied the requirements of section 15(1)(a), even where records that an applicant believes to exist or are known to have existed cannot be found. We do not generally expect FOI bodies to carry out extensive or indefinite general searches for records simply because an applicant asserts that records should or might exist.
Having regard to,
• the Council’s description of the searches it said it has undertaken,
• its explanation of its records management practices in respect of the type of records sought by the applicant,
• its reasons for concluding that no records exist or can be found, and
• in the absence of any evidence to suggest that further relevant searches might be warranted,
I am satisfied that the Council has taken all reasonable steps to locate the records sought by the applicant.
Accordingly, while I acknowledge the applicant will be disappointed by my findings, I find the Council was justified in refusing access, under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, to records falling within the scope of her request, on the grounds that no such records exist or can be found after all reasonable steps to ascertain their whereabouts have been taken. For the benefit of the applicant, it is worth reiterating that the Council have stated that it believes a named Local Authority (the name of which was provided to the applicant) is the relevant FOI Body which may hold records relating to her request, due to the fact that this named authority is the host authority for the training centre which she has specified in her request. As such, it is open to the applicant to submit a fresh request to this named Local Authority for said records if she wishes.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby affirm the Council’s decision to refuse access to the records sought by the applicant under section 15(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