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.
25 Resources Show all
Template letter 16: Refusal letter under section 18(h) OIA / section 17(h) LGOIMA
Template letters and worksheets, Template lettersUse this letter if you need to refuse a request under section 18(h) OIA / section 17(h) LGOIMA—Frivolous or vexatious request.Frivolous, vexatious and trivial: A guide to section 18(h) of the OIA and section 17(h) of the LGOIMA
Official informationUnder section 18(h) of the OIA (17(h) of the LGOIMA) a request can be refused if it is frivolous or vexatious, or the information is trivial.Earthquake Commission’s interpretation of the Earthquake Commission Act 1993 regarding swimming pool building not unreasonable
Case notesWhether the Earthquake Commission was unreasonable to decline compensation for damage to the pool house enclosing a swimming pool at a Christchurch property—Ombudsman concluded EQC’s decision was not unreasonableEarthquake Commission should reimburse claimant’s travel costs when staff fail to attend meeting
Case notesEarthquake Commission asked to reimburse claimants who travelled to Christchurch from Auckland to attend a meeting with EQC officials who failed to arrive—Ombudsman concluded EQC failed to provide the level of service required in the circumstances—EQC asked to offer ex gratia payment to compensate losses incurred and to apologiseRequest for internal and external correspondence relating to OIA requests
Case notesRequest not frivolous or vexatious—information not trivial—agency should have met or at least talked with the requester before changing its practice of providing this type of informationEarthquake Commission must follow legislation on claim lodgement time but Ombudsman considers law harsh
Case notesEarthquake Commission (EQC) not unreasonable to decline a claim lodged out of time because this is required under the legislation—Ombudsman considers the law unreasonably harsh and it should be changed—EQC advised it will look into amending the lawRequest for information about mental health
Case notesRefusal justified but not because request was vexatious—some information not held but would need to be created—some information could not be provided without substantial collation or researchEarthquake Commission’s handling of a claim unreasonable in the circumstances
Case notesWhether the Earthquake Commission (EQC) had handled a claim for drapes and carpets in a reasonable manner—Chief Ombudsman found aspects of EQC’s handling of the matter to have been unsatisfactoryRequest for ‘movement log’ and police file
Case notesRequester not deprived of right to access official information because he had already received all relevant information—requester not deprived of access to justice because his underlying concerns had been conclusively resolved in a range of forums¬—vexatious complaint, Ombudsman refuses to investigateRequest for information relating to proposed parking changes in a street
Case notesVolume of correspondence and requests created challenges but requester had a legitimate interest in obtaining information to help them understand the intended changes and make submissions—no evidence the request was made for irrational, mischievous or malicious reasons—no evidence that the agency had helped the requester to refine the request, reduce the scope, or clarify the specific information sought—request not frivolous or vexatiousRequest for copy of LGOIMA request
Case notesEarlier decision to supply the (wrong) information undermined later decision to declare the request vexatious—request arose out of genuine interest in the subject—while the requester had been critical of Council that did not mean the purpose of his request was to harass or annoy—s 18(h) does not apply—information should be releasedRequest for correspondence regarding dog control officer’s actions
Case notesRequest related to dispute some 16 years prior that had already been the subject of court proceedings and inquiries by this Office—request was an attempt to re-litigate already long concluded matters and an abuse of the right to access official information—vexatious complaint—Ombudsman refuses to investigateRequest for evidentiary conclusions in respect of 15 issues or assertions and information about religious affiliation or association of staff
Case notesInformation not held—evidentiary conclusions would need to be created—to the extent that if information about religious affiliation or association of staff was held in mind of Commissioner, it would be held in a personal capacityEarthquake Commission’s assessment of emergency repairs on red zone property not unreasonable
Case notesWhether Earthquake Commission (EQC) reasonably addressed concerns about emergency repair work on property affected by earthquake damage—Chief Ombudsman concluded EQC’s handling of this claim had not been unreasonableRequest for information about tangata whenua rights
Case notesRequester seeking official statement from Minister—information not held—explanation would need to be createdInformation fault lines: accessing EQC information in Canterbury
Systemic investigationsA joint report of the Chief Ombudsman and the Privacy Commissioner into the Earthquake Commission's handling of information requests in Canterbury.Earthquake Commission not unreasonable to decline payment for engineering reports commissioned by property owner
Case notesWhether it was reasonable for EQC to decline payment for two engineering reports—Ombudsman considered that EQC had not acted unreasonably in this respectEarthquake Commission unreasonable not to settle claim in the particular circumstances
Case notesEarthquake Commission (EQC) refused to proceed with contents claim without explaining to claimant, even though the claim had been assessed and approved—Ombudsman finds EQC’s actions unreasonable—complaint settled when EQC agreed to rectify its omissionRequest for breakdown of invoice
Case notesCouncil concerned that request was part of a strategy to delay or avoid payment—no basis to believe request was made in bad faith—request not frivolous or vexatious—information should be releasedRequest for audit report of approved organisation under Animal Welfare Act
Case notesAcrimonious history and prolonged legal dispute were relevant to decision whether or not request was vexatious—while future similar requests might be vexatious this one was not—the requester’s legitimate concern about effectiveness of Ministry’s oversight of approved organisations was the catalyst for the audit report, and she was initially promised a copy of it—requester was genuinely interested in and entitled to know the findings—request not frivolous or vexatious—Trust does not have a commercial position—s 9(2)(b)(ii) does not applyRequests by lawyer for information about client
Case notesA proportion of the large volume of information at issue could fairly be characterised as ‘trivial’, bearing in mind the purpose of the request—this included auto replies, read receipts, undeliverable messages, emails arranging meetings and information generated to facilitate the proper processing of the requester’s OIA and Privacy Act requestsEarthquake Commission can impose excess levy under the regulations
Case notesTwo adjoining properties affected by a landslide – EQC levied an excess on both properties in accordance with the Earthquake Commission Act 1993 (Regulations 1993, reg 4(1)(b)—the Ombudsman concluded EQC was entitled to impose the excessRequest for information refused due to offensive and repetitive nature
Case notesNumber of requests made to Police over several years—recent request considered frivolous and vexatious—refused under s 18(h) in light of tone of correspondence and previous similar requests—requester had genuine interest in obtaining the requested information—requester agreed to withdraw the abusive remarks and redraft his requests purged of derogatory and intemperate commentEarthquake Commission not required to cover buildings under construction in the event of a landslide
Case notesEarthquake Commission and Insurer both decline cover for half-built structure on private property, damaged following a landslide—still being under construction meant the building was not being used for its intended purpose and EQC’s decision in this respect was correct—Ombudsman advised that the complainant could refer the matter back to the insurer for a reconsideration and the Insurer in this case took a liberal view of what had been an unusual event and settled the claim—case indicates the need to obtain cover for landslip while a building is under constructionRequests for information about decision making declined for being vexatious
Case notesRequests for further information declined under s 18(h)—requests not frivolous or vexatious—the information had not previously been made available Request to Apple and Pear Marketing Board involved substantial collation or research and the creation of explanations— ss 18(f) and 18(g) apply