Cinneadh
Mr. X & TUSLA- Child and Family Agency (Tusla)
Ó Oifig an Choimisinéara Faisnéise
Cásuimhir: OIC-201008-T6R8S9
Foilsithe
Teanga: Níl leagan Gaeilge den mhír seo ar fáil.
Ó Oifig an Choimisinéara Faisnéise
Cásuimhir: OIC-201008-T6R8S9
Foilsithe
Teanga: Níl leagan Gaeilge den mhír seo ar fáil.
Whether Tusla’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
4 June 2026
On 15 February 2026, the applicant submitted a 6-part request for a range of records relating generally to his involvement as a parent, guardian and long-term foster carer. It is my understanding that this request was a refined version of a request previously submitted by the applicant on 4 February 2026, which Tusla had informed him was voluminous.
Tusla acknowledged the applicant’s FOI request on 18 February 2026 and advised him that he could expect a decision by 16 March 2026. On 12 March 2026, Tusla wrote to the applicant informing him that it was necessary to extend the timeframe for responding to his request by 4 weeks to 14 April 2026. Tusla stated the reason for this time extension was due to issues
recalling files from archiving/DNC Network.
On 13 March 2026, the applicant emailed Tusla asking for an explanation of the basis for the time extension applied. He stated that, according to the FOI Act, it was his understanding that time extensions may only be applied in limited circumstances. He stated that it appeared the reason provided by Tusla for the time extension; namely, difficulties recalling files from archiving/DNC Network, appeared to relate to internal administrative issues and did not appear to meet the statutory grounds set out in the Act. The applicant requested that Tusla confirm (1) the specific statutory provision under which the extension had been applied, and (2) how his request met the criteria for that provision, beyond internal file-retrieval difficulties. On 18 March 2026, the applicant followed up with Tusla on the points above, stating he had yet to receive a response to his email of 13 March 2026.
On 18 March 2026, Tusla wrote to the applicant to apologise for the delay. In this email, Tusla stated that the applicant was correct when he stated that the extension of time applied in his case did not fall within the limited grounds permitted under the FOI Act for extending a decision deadline. Tusla’s FOI Officer stated that they had been unable to access all of the records falling within the scope of the applicant’s request. The FOI Officer stated that they were actively pursuing these records and that unfortunately they could not process records which were not in their possession. Tusla informed the applicant that if he was unhappy with the extension applied it was open to him to appeal this decision to the Office of the Information Commissioner.
On 25 March 2026, the applicant applied to this Office for a ‘formal review under section 22 of the Freedom of Information Act 2014 due to a deemed refusal by Tusla’ in relation to his FOI request submitted on 18 February 2026. During correspondence with the applicant, on 2 April 2026 this Office explained that the applicant’s request could not be considered as a ‘deemed refusal ’ at that stage owing to the fact that Tusla had extended the timeframe for responding to his request by 4 weeks, making the new deadline date for decision 14 April 2026. This Office informed the applicant that, if he was unhappy with the time extension applied by Tusla, it was open to him to apply for a review of this element of the request. The applicant stated he wished to proceed on this basis, and as such this Office accepted his application for a review of Tusla’s decision to extend the timeframe for responding to his request under section 14 of the Act.
During the course of this review, Tusla provided submissions to this Office in relation to its decision to extend the timeframe for responding to the applicant’s request. Additionally, the applicant also provided submissions to this Office in support of his belief that Tusla were not justified in extending the timeframe for responding to his request under section 14 of the Act.
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 Tusla and the applicant. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
This review is concerned solely with whether Tusla’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, Tusla acknowledged that its reliance on section 14 of the FOI Act to extend the timeframe for responding to the applicant’s FOI request was made in error. Tusla stated that it had chosen to extend the timeframe for responding to the applicant’s request in good faith and on the basis that it was simply unable to gather all the records requested by the applicant within the statutory timeframe allotted. However, Tusla acknowledged in its submissions to this Office that such reasoning- internal administrative delays- did not fall within the strictly defined requirements of section 14 of the Act, and accepted that it had regrettably applied section 14 in error on this occasion.
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 difficulty sourcing records across multiple internal Units. Under section 14 of the Act, the FOI body is entitled to extend the decision making period only where the request relates to such a number of records or such a number of requests relating either to the record or records to which the specified request relates that compliance with the four-week timeframe set out in section 13 is not reasonably possible.
During the course of the review, Tusla informed this Office that a substantive decision on the applicant’s request has since been issued, dated 7 April 2026, in which a number of records were released to the applicant. It is worth noting here that I acknowledge in his submissions to this Office, in addition to his belief that Tusla were not justified in extending the time frame for responding to his request, the applicant made a number of comments regarding substantive matters relating to his request and Tusla’s decision. As explained to the applicant, whilst these matters are not within the scope of this request, it is open to him to apply for an internal review of Tusla’s decision, and if he is unhappy with- or does not receive- the internal review decision, he can then apply to this Office for a review of the substantive matters if he so wishes.
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 Tusla. Accordingly, while my findings in this case can have no tangible benefit for the applicant given that Tusla has already issued its substantive decision on his request, I find that Tusla’s decision to extend the period for considering the applicant’s request was not in accordance with the provisions of section 14 of the FOI Act.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby annul Tusla’s decision to extend the period for consideration of the applicant’s request under section 14 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.
____________________
Mary Connery
Investigator