Cinneadh
Mr. X and Uisce Éireann
Ó Oifig an Choimisinéara Faisnéise
Cásuimhir: OIC-162640-R8G8T4
Foilsithe
Teanga: Níl leagan Gaeilge den mhír seo ar fáil.
Ó Oifig an Choimisinéara Faisnéise
Cásuimhir: OIC-162640-R8G8T4
Foilsithe
Teanga: Níl leagan Gaeilge den mhír seo ar fáil.
Whether Uisce Éireann was justified in its decision to extend the period for consideration of the applicant’s FOI request under section 14 of the FOI Act
4 December 2025
On 18 August 2025, the applicant submitted the third in a series of four FOI requests to Uisce Éireann wherein he sought all records relating to him as held by Uisce Éireann covering the period 18 July 2025 to 18 August 2025. On 12 September 2025, Uisce Éireann wrote to the applicant and said it was extending the period for consideration of the request by four weeks under section 14(1) of the FOI Act. It said that since June 2025, it had processed two FOI requests and two internal reviews for the applicant. It said that the request at issue was the third separate request and that a fourth request had also since been submitted covering a period immediately following the period covered by the request at issue. It said this was placing a significant burden on the FOI Unit and personnel in Uisce Éireann dealing with his requests. It said that given the number of records to be searched, reviewed, and scheduled for the request at issue, including work involved in excluding records that had already been provided to the applicant, it was not reasonably possible to respond by the statutory deadline of 15 September 2025. It said it would issue a decision by 13 October 2025.
On 17 September 2025, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of Uisce Éireann’s decision to extend the timeframe for replying to his request. In his application for review, he said the extension was applied at the very last possible moment, and that this was a deliberate act of obstruction.
Uisce Éireann issued its decision on the applicant’s request on 13 October 2025. As such, my decision in this case can have no tangible impact on the processing of the applicant’s FOI request. Both parties are aware of this, so I have decided to conclude the review by way of a formal, binding 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 applicant’s comments in his application for review and to the submissions made by Uisce Éireann during the course of the review.
This review is concerned solely with whether the Uisce Éireann’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.
In his correspondence with this Office during the review, the applicant referenced other engagements had had with Uisce Éireann and suggested that Uisce Éireann’s decision to extend the time in respect of the request at issue was part of a wider pattern of behaviour that demonstrates that the extension was not an isolated or genuine need, but part of a recurring approach to delay and obstruct access. He also copied this Office on email correspondence he had with Uisce Éireann concerning the accessibility of the records Uisce Éireann eventually released in response to the request. It is important to note that this review has been undertaken pursuant to section 22 of the FOI Act and is confined to the matter identified above under the heading “Scope of Review”. It is not concerned with the appropriateness, or otherwise, of the manner in which Uisce Éireann engaged with the applicant on other related FOI matters.
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.
Uisce Éireann provided detailed submissions to this Office, in which it set out details of the numbers of records coming within the scope of the relevant request and the extensive engagements it had had with the applicant in response to his FOI requests. It said that at the point at which the request was due to be decided, it had already dealt with and fully responded to two previous requests from the applicant. It said that two internal reviews in respect of those requests, each of which it said involved detailed correspondence with the applicant, were either complete or ongoing at the time. It provided details of its engagements with the applicant in respect of those requests, including correspondence with this Office in connection with both previous applications. It said the request at issue was the third FOI request made in a short period of time, and it was overlapping with the internal review period for the second FOI request.
Uisce Éireann said the applicant then submitted a fourth FOI request on 6 September 2025 which included a request for records concerning his three previous requests and a record that had been released in error on the second FOI request. Uisce Éireann said this fourth request resulted in “fairly involved correspondence with the applicant ”. Uisce Éireann believes that the applicant was likely engaging in a pattern of requests whereby he was continuously seeking not only records relating to him as a customer of Uisce Éireann but also records relating to dealing with the previous requests he had submitted. It said that in addition to processing the applicant’s FOI requests, internal reviews and OIC appeals, it also had to handle numerous and lengthy email exchanges with the applicant where he raised various issues.
Uisce Éireann further said that relevant personnel, including members of the internal legal team who were tasked with advising in relation to the applicant’s requests, relevant decision makers and internal reviewers, had at that point had a significant amount of their time taken up with dealing with the applicant, on top of their other FOI-related work and their other workloads. It said that as of 12 September 2025 (the date when it informed the applicant of its decision to extend the timeframe for issuing a decision), its FOI/AIE Unit was processing 16 other FOI requests (excluding the applicant’s requests) and 12 requests made by other individuals under the Access to Information on the Environment Regulations. It said the FOI Officer and members of the internal legal team advise the decision-makers on FOI requests, particularly where, as in this case, the applicant is a customer who has an active customer complaint with Uisce Éireann. It said, therefore, that although different decision-makers were delegated to make the decisions in relation to each of the requests, the same personnel in the FOI Unit and internal legal team would have advised on and assisted in relation to the request. It said it therefore considered it relevant to take into account the workloads of the relevant personnel in the FOI Unit, the internal legal team, as well as the workload of the designated decision-maker in respect of the request at issue. It said that as at 12 September 2025, those personnel had already dealt with two FOI requests from the applicant, two internal reviews of those requests, detailed correspondence with the applicant, having to make the records available to him via email rather than its Alfresco ShareFile, and were engaging with this Office in relation to the applications for review that had been made by the applicant in respect of two FOI requests, and had engaged with the applicant in relation to the intended scope of the newest (fourth) FOI request that was made by the applicant on 6 September 2025. Uisce Éireann said a lot of this work was overlapping and was in addition to the other workloads of the staff concerned.
On the matter of the records considered relevant to the request at issue, Uisce Éireann said 25 people returned results for all internal and external records created within the period in question, and it provided this Office with a spreadsheet of all emails and documents returned. It said there would have been a significant amount of internal collaboration such as emails and Teams. The breakdown of the returns is as follows:
• 241 emails were identified as “primary” emails within scope for the period of 18 July 2025 to 18 August 2025.
• These emails contained a total of 1,868 documents for review.
• This is broken down into:
o 1,080 emails (863 of which are emails in themselves made up of replies and older emails that have been sent as attachments)
o 788 attachments that are not emails (Excels, PDFs, Word Docs, Images etc).
• 1,443 were identified as duplicates (the same email and attachments received and returned by multiple parties.
Uisce Éireann said that because of an access issue with attachments relating to the second FOI request, records were sent to the requestor several times, creating approximately 135 records alone. It said the volume of documentation to be reviewed was then compounded by the applicant replying to these emails attaching all the records already released to him.
Uisce Éireann also specifically referenced nine emails received from the applicant during the period 18 July to 18 August. It said these emails were always detailed and required a response from various different personnel in Uisce Éireann. It said the number of documents to be reviewed was increased given the number of personnel copied on all of the emails and even though there was significant duplication, all email threads had to be reviewed each time to ensure that they were all within scope.
Uisce Éireann said it issued its decision on the request on 13 October 2025. It said 364 records were subsequently granted or part granted, comprising 1,942 pages in the bundle of records released. It said 25 records were refused. It added that in an effort to address the applicants underlying concerns, the Head of Customer contacted the applicant on 5 September 2025 and requested a face-to-face meeting to discuss matters of concern to him. It said this request was refused by the applicant who wanted all correspondence in writing.
Uisce Éireann said that given all of the circumstances as set out above, the personnel concerned had reached a stage on 12 September 2025 where they reasonably assessed that they were not going to be able to meet the deadline for response, and that on that basis there was sufficient reason to apply the grounds for extension under Section 14(1) of the FOI Act.
At the outset, I wish to address the applicant’s contention that the extension was applied at the very last possible moment in this case, and that this was a deliberate act of obstruction. On the matter of the timing of the notification, it is important to note that where an FOI body wishes to extend the time-frame for processing a request, the Act simply requires that it must notify the applicant before the expiry of the four-week time-frame set out in section 13. The notification Uisce Éireann issued in this case met this requirement. In any event, Uisce Éireann has, in my view, explained why some time passed before it determined that it would not be in a position to process the request within the four-week time-frame.
The circumstances in which an FOI body may extend the time-frame for processing a request are quite narrow and are set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 14(1), as outlined above. Paragraph (b) is concerned with the number of other requests for the same records or information the FOI Body has received and that have not yet been decided upon. If that number of requests is such that compliance with the four-week time-frame for making a decision is not reasonably possible, the FOI body may extend the time-frame doing so. Notwithstanding Uisce Éireann’s description of the related extensive engagements it had with the applicant in respect of the two previous requests it had received from him while processing the request at issue, I am not satisfied that it was the number of requests received for the same records or information that caused Uisce Éireann to extend the time-frame for processing the applicant’s third request. Rather, having carefully considered its submissions, it seems to me that its primary reasons for doing so were due to (i) the ongoing and significant workload that had arisen as a result of its engagements with the applicant, and (ii) the number of records to which the request related.
The provisions of section 14 are very specific and do not allow for the extension of the period for consideration of a request because of work pressures. As such, Uisce Éireann’s submissions as to the ongoing and significant workload that had arisen as a result of its engagements with the applicant are of no relevance to the question of whether or not it was justified in extending the time-frame for processing the request. On the other hand, the number of records to which the request related is, indeed, a relevant consideration.
The FOI Act provides no guidance on the number of records 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. In this case, Uisce Éireann has provided evidence of the number of records that fell to be considered in the processing of the applicant’s request, as outlined above. I am satisfied that the number of records requiring examination was significant. Moreover, having regard to Uisce Éireann’s description of the nature of the records, including the overlapping and/or multi-recipient nature of same and the resultant duplication of emails, I am also satisfied that Uisce Éireann was entirely justified in determining that a significant amount of time would be required to process and issue a decision on them. Accordingly, I find that Uisce Éireann was justified in its decision to extend the timeframe for considering the applicant’s request pursuant to section 14(1)(a) of the FOI Act.
Finally, while it forms no part of this decision, I note Uisce Éireann’s offer to meet with the applicant to discuss matters of concern to him and applicant’s refusal to take it up on that offer. While he is fully entitled to make that decision, it seems to me that some form of discussion between the parties to find a way forward would be prudent, given the significant amount of correspondence generated and expenditure of resources to date through email exchanges and related requests.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby affirm the Department’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.
Stephen Rafferty
Senior Investigator