Resources and publications
Ngā rauemi me ngā tānga
Search guides, case notes, opinions, reports and other information. Resources and publications can also be searched by date and other options.
Use the search bar to make your search. Then use the filters to narrow down the results by resource type or topic.
More information about the resource categories on this page
Guides
Commonly used guides include:
- The OIA for Ministers and agencies
- The LGOIMA for local government agencies
- Making official information requests: a guide for requesters
Detailed guidance on the official information legislation and aspects of good administrative practice.
We also have guidance on disability rights and protected disclosures.
Case notes and opinions
Case notes are a short case summary, often demonstrating an aspect of a case.
An Ombudsman's Opinion is published where there is public interest in showing the full details of a case.
Reports
Reports include OPCAT, disability rights, official information practice and systemic investigation.
Outreach
Contains our media releases, newsletters, pamphlets, speeches and fact sheets. Fact sheets are published in multiple language and accessible formats.
Corporate documents
This includes our annual reports and strategic intentions.
Projects, reference and data
This includes our official information complaints data, updates on investigations and other projects, and submissions by the Ombudsman.
View all projects, reference and data
Template letters and work sheets
These template letters and work sheets can be used by agencies to help respond to official information requests.
37 Resources Show all
Request for cost of recruiting Vice-Chancellor
Case notesRelease of total cost would not unreasonably prejudice third party’s commercial position—no specific negotiations—release of total costs would not deter businesses from treating with government—public interest in accountability for spending public moneyCancellation of transport card and refusal to refund money stored on the card
Case notesA complaint was made against Auckland Transport (AT) about its cancellation of an ‘AT HOP’ card used by commuters on Auckland’s public transport system.Request for information associated with PHARMAC’s 2016/17 budget bid
Case notesPHARMAC did not have a commercial position and was not engaged in commercial activities—s 9(2)(j) applies to information about PHARMAC’s willingness to pay for pharmaceuticals but not to PHARMAC’s indicative budget in out-yearsLocal Authority’s efforts to mitigate effects of resource consent errors not unreasonable
Case notesLocal Authority decision about wall constructed on boundary—Council erred by not requiring resource consent and then offered assistance to owners to lodge application—complainant considered Council unfair not to offer assistance to him to oppose the consentLocal Authority’s Code of Compliance Certificate on drainage reasonable in circumstances
Case notesLocal Authority decision on detection of cross connection piping problem not unreasonable—Body Corporation of building forced to pay costs—question whether Code of Compliance Certificate should have been issued—Ombudsman concluded Council not aware of problemRegional Authority decision on resource consent for pergola on non-notified basis not unreasonable
Case notesRegional Authority’s decision to grant resource consent for a pergola on a non-notified basis was reasonable in the circumstance—permitted baseline test under section 95E of the Resource Management Act 1991Local Authority’s Trespass Notice unreasonable in circumstances
Case notesLocal Authority issued Trespass Notice for two years at sports stadium—Ombudsman noted serious misconduct on part of complainant to warrant action but trespass sanction extreme—complaint sustained and Council implemented Ombudsman’s recommendationsEnergy Efficiency and Conservation Authority not unreasonable in tender process
Case notesComplaint about tender process when tenderer found its partner had also bid individually but was not informed by EECA—Ombudsman concluded the process followed was not unreasonable and had already been reviewed by independent reviewerLocal Authority did not act unreasonably in remedying damage following tree removal
Case notesLocal Authority—removal of two pohutukawa trees—Council agreed to mitigate loss of these in conjunction with the land owner—Ombudsman considered Council did not act unreasonablyDepartment of Corrections unreasonably declines computer access to inmate
Case notesAccess to computer suite in prison denied—Ombudsman found this unreasonable—Corrections agreed to reconsider the inmate’s request and to review criteria for use—also that computer facilities at prison be reviewed to ensure availability to prisoners who meet criteria for assistance with litigationDepartment of Corrections not unreasonable to decline face to face interview between prisoner and journalist in particular case
Case notesPrisoner requested face to face interview with journalist—request declined—Ombudsman noted journalist had offered to conduct interview by AVL, notwithstanding preference for face to face—Ombudsman concluded that on this basis Department had not acted unreasonably in this instanceRequest for tender submissions to replace jetty at Philomel Landing
Case notesRelease of tenderers’ pricing strategy would give an unfair advantage to their competitors and unreasonably prejudice their commercial position—s 9(2)(b)(ii) OIA applies—release would make tenderers reluctant to provide as much detail about their design specifications in future— s 9(2)(ba)(i) applies—it was in the public interest for NZDF to receive full and detailed submissions as this would otherwise undermine its ability to make an informed decision on the best tenderer to award a contractRequest for successful tenderer’s proposal
Case notesRelease would reveal successful tenderer’s marketing strategy which would unreasonably prejudice its commercial position— s 9(2)(b)(ii) applies—public interest met by disclosure of tender scores and minutes of evaluation panelLocal Authority provided unreasonable advice regarding its investigation process
Case notesWhether the Local Authority (District Council) reasonably provided advice to complainant regarding an investigation it was undertaking into a Code of Conduct complaint—Ombudsman of the view that the Council erred in this respectLocal Authority not unreasonable to enforce pool fence requirements despite previous decisions
Case notesLocal Authority previously allowed existing fence of swimming pool—new inspection revealed old decisions wrong—complainant considered change unfair—Ombudsman concluded Council entitled to insist on regulationsRequest for copy of reviewers’ training manual
Case notesInformation was not a trade secret—although FairWay was engaged in commercial activities, it was not clear how disclosure would prejudice or disadvantage those activities—the manual was largely in the public domain, and there was little prospect of competition—ss 9(2)(b)(i), 9(2)(i) do not applyLocal Authority unreasonably failed to consult with residents about building relocation
Case notesLocal Authority allowed relocation of building without providing for adequate consultation process with the local community—Ombudsman upheld complaintRequest for information about a Department’s employment operations
Case notesPre-cast concrete operation is a commercial activity—s 9(2)(i) appliesRequest for salvage plan relating to MV Rena
Case notesRevealing salvage company’s detailed methodology would give other companies a competitive advantage in future tenders, which would be likely unreasonably to prejudice its commercial position—s 9(2)(b)(ii) appliesRequest for financial information concerning Council’s waste management proposals
Case notesCouncil waste management activities not commercial—s 7(2)(h) does not applyRequest for transport rates, cost and revenues per route
Case notesCost per route to the Council not protected by s 7(2)(b)(ii)—any prejudice would not be unreasonable—s 7(2)(b)(ii) applies to revenue per route—this would reveal operators’ tender strategies, thereby prejudicing their ability to participate competitively in future tendersRequest for tender scores for successful tenderer
Case notesRelease of tender scores would not be likely unreasonably to prejudice successful tenderer’s commercial position—s 9(2)(b)(ii) does not applyRequest for copy of winning tender for Lawrence Oliver Park
Case notesRelease would enable competitors to anticipate winning tenderer’s strategy in future bids, which would unreasonably prejudice their commercial position—s 7(2)(b)(ii) appliesLocal Authority unreasonably failed to provide information on LIM
Case notesLocal Authority failed to provide information in a Land Information Memorandum(LIM) about outstanding capital contribution for a sewer—Ombudsman considered Council acted unreasonably—Council made payment to complainant in resolution of complaintOmbudsman has no jurisdiction over District Council electoral officer
Case notesJurisdiction—Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over Council electoral officer—electoral expense returns not subject to Local Government Information and Meetings Act 1982Request for charitable trust’s funding application
Case notesTrust does not have a commercial position—even if it did, release of the information would not be likely unreasonably to prejudice it—the trust has no competitors, and is very different to other organisations in terms of its size, nature of operations and services¬—s 9(2)(b)(ii) does not applyRequest for names of tenderers and prices
Case notesRelease of names and total prices, as opposed to detailed pricing or market strategy, would not be likely unreasonably to prejudice the tenderers’ commercial positions—public interest in release to promote integrity and transparency of the tender process—s 7(2)(b)(ii) does not applyLocal Authority unreasonable to review peppercorn rental without prior notice
Case notesPeppercorn rent paid to Council for encroachment licence fee for garage—Council increased amount—inconsistent process—Ombudsman viewed increase unreasonable because of lack of noticeLocal Authority and property vendors both responsible for checking lease agreement
Case notesLocal Authority—unreasonable not to have contacted previous lease holder three months after licence to occupy had expired and before agreeing to lease land to another person—Local Authority agrees to apologise to complainantLocal Authority not unreasonable to allow retrospective consents on building already constructed
Case notesLocal Authority issued an abatement notice to developers—Ombudsman concludes it was reasonable for Council to allow building to proceed while consent process completed—Council acted in accordance with the Resource Management Act (RMA)Local Authority unreasonably failed to consider planning implications for building addition
Case notesLocal Authority unreasonable to require the complainant to obtain a resource consent for completed building work, which had been authorised by the Council three years previouslyRegional Authority’s tender process inadequate
Case notesRegional Council’s tender processes unreasonable, although the tender was incomplete, the Council officer contacted complainant after close of tenders to clarify his tender—having allowed an incomplete tender to proceed and provided complainant with an opportunity to clarify the tender, it was unreasonable for that clarification not to have been provided to the Tender Committee