Decision
Mr X and Department of Social Protection
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-152251-B5G1K8
Published on
British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Irish Information Commissioner's Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Irish Information Commissioner's Decisions >> Mr X and Department of Social Protection [2024] IEIC 152251 (04 December 2024)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEIC/2024/152251.html
Cite as: [2024] IEIC 152251
[New search] [Help]
Whether the Department was justified, under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, in refusing further records relating to the applicant on the basis that no such records exist or can be found
3 December 2024
On 27 June 2024, the applicant requested information relating to him held by the Department pertaining to two addresses which he provided. The applicant said he also wanted details of any other addresses held by the Department relating to him that he is not aware of. He also requested details of all bank accounts attached to his file, including the date on which these bank details were added to his file. The applicant provided the Department with his Personal Public Service Number (PPSN).
On 25 July 2024, the Department refused the applicant's request as he had failed to provide it with the proof of identification it had requested. On 23 August 2024, the applicant sought an internal review of the Department's decision and provided it with proof of his identity. On 12 September 2024, the Department released three records with details of addresses it held for the applicant. The Department refused access to the bank details sought by the applicant under section 15(1)(a) of the Act, saying no bank account details are recorded under the applicant's PPSN. On 22 September 2024, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of the Department's decision concerning the bank details he requested.
During the course of this review, this Office's Investigating Officer provided the applicant with details of the Department's submissions to this Office about the searches it had undertaken and the reasons why it concluded that it does not hold bank account details for the applicant. The applicant responded with submissions in the matter.
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, including the submissions made by the Department and the applicant. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
This review is solely concerned with whether the Department was justified, under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, in refusing access to bank account details relating to the applicant on the basis that no such records exist or can be found.
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 locate them have been taken. The role of this Office in such cases is to review the decision of the FOI body and decide whether that decision was justified. This means that we must have regard to the evidence available to the decision maker and the reasoning used by the decision maker in arriving at its decision and 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 Department provided details of the steps it took to locate the records requested by the applicant, details of which were provided to the applicant. While I do not intend to repeat these details in full here, I can confirm that I have had regard to them.
The Department said that bank account details and addresses provided by a customer during any application made to the Department are scanned and filed to the Department's ICT system. The Department said that records pertaining to bank details and previous and current addresses supplied by the customer are updated on its IT system when the information is received by the Department from the customer. Since the introduction of scanning, the Department said that paper-based files are no longer created.
The Department said that a full search was carried out on its IT system using the applicant's PPSN. It said that it also contacted a named Intreo Centre which confirmed that no paper record was in existence and any records pertaining to the applicant are held electronically on the Department's IT system.
The Department said that the applicant had one application for Jobseeker's Allowance listed with the Department from October 2017. It said that during his Jobseeker's Allowance application, the applicant signed a declaration stating that he did not have a bank account at the time, a copy of which was provided to this Office for the purpose of the review. The Department said that, after the applicant failed to provide further information needed to progress his Jobseeker's application, his application was closed. The Department said that it made no payment to the applicant and no bank details were supplied by him under his PPSN. It stated that it has no record of the applicant making any other applications to the Department for assistance before or after 2017. The Department said that no payments for any social welfare schemes have ever been issued under the applicant's PPSN and no record of a bank account has been provided by him under his PPSN.
Separately, the Department said that it issued statements to the applicant upon request on 1 August 2024 and again on 19 September 2024. It said both statements confirm that no payments were made to the applicant by the Department.
The Department said that it holds details of a joint bank account which includes the applicant and another party. It said that this joint bank account information is held under the other party's PPS Number and is not linked to the applicant's PPSN. In his submission to this Office, the applicant said he is not seeking information relating to this joint bank account.
The Department stated that it did find three addresses listed under the applicant's PPSN and so released these records to him. One of the addresses matched one mentioned by the applicant in his original request, but the Department said it did not find any records on its system relating to the other address specified in the applicant's request. It stated that personal details will only generate under an address if the person supplied the information to the Department. The Department said that it also carried out a search using the other address that the applicant mentioned in his original request in addition to the search under his PPSN. It said that there was no result when this address was inputted into the system.
As noted above, the applicant said he is not seeking information relating to the joint bank account referred to by the Department. He said that a Social Welfare manager had said in conversation a few months ago that bank account details were held dating back to his involvement in the 'Youthreach' programme from 2018-19.
The Investigating Officer raised this with the Department. The Department asked if the applicant could provide the name of the manager who informed him that there may be bank details relating to the Youthreach programme to help find out if these records could be found. The applicant said he could not recall the name of the manager. The Investigating Officer asked the applicant if he ever provided bank details to the Department of Social Welfare and the applicant said he did not.
The Department said that the Youthreach programme is delivered by the Education and Training Boards (ETB) which are separate public bodies from the Department of Social Protection. The Department noted there is an ETB building very close to its Intreo Centre and suggested that this may have been the source of information about the Youthreach programme. The Department stated that it does not have access to ETB records and that the applicant could make a new FOI request to the appropriate ETB if he wished. The Department provided contact details for making an FOI request to the ETB which the Investigating Officer provided to the applicant along with its response about the Youthreach programme. The applicant was invited to comment further if he wished to do so. No response has been received to date.
The FOI Act does not require an FOI body to continue searching indefinitely for records that cannot be found. What the Act requires is that the FOI body concerned takes all reasonable steps to locate relevant records. We may conclude that an FOI body has conducted reasonable searches even where records were known to have existed but 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 more records should or might exist, or rejects an FOI body's explanation of why a record does not exist. The test in section 15(1)(a) is whether searches have been reasonable. Having regard to Department's submissions, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I am satisfied that the Department has taken all reasonable steps to locate records covered by the applicant's request. In the circumstances, I find that the Department was justified in refusing access to further records relating to the applicant's FOI request under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby affirm the Department's decision to refuse access to further records coming within the scope of the applicant's request 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