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.
22 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.Request 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 informationEnergy 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 reviewerRequest 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 researchRequest 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 capacityRequest for information about tangata whenua rights
Case notesRequester seeking official statement from Minister—information not held—explanation would need to be createdRequest 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 requestsReport on complaints arising from aerial spraying
Systemic investigationsIn June 2003 I received complaints from Ms Jane Schaverien, then of Auckland but now of Wellington, to investigate under the Ombudsmen Act 1975 the question whether the information given to Ministers by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry was inadequate regarding the possible dangers associated with the widespread concentrated use of Foray 48B in West Auckland, and in relation to the Ministry of Health, whether the Ministry had failed to pursue its responsibilities under the Health Act, 1956, or had abdicated those responsibilities in favour of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. In September 2003 I received a complaint from a Hamilton resident, Ms Michelle Rhodes, in generally similar terms regarding the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. These complaints arose from the aerial spraying operations carried out on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in West Auckland to eliminate the Painted Apple Moth, and in parts of Hamilton to eliminate the Asian Gypsy Moth. In relation to West Auckland these operations began on a comparatively small-scale in January 2002, they were continued on a much larger scale through to May 2003, and were finally completed in May 2004.Department of Conservation unreasonable to cease administrative practice without notice
Case notesDepartment of Conservation to discontinue without notice a practice which people had come to reasonably rely on—Ombudsman concludes it was unreasonable to cease this administrative practice without noticeDepartment of Conservation within rights on Memorandum of Transfer for land easement agreement
Case notesAgreement for Sale and Purchase between private landowner and Crown—creation of equitable easement—registered Memorandum of Transfer creates legal easement but excludes reference to ‘members of the public’ referred to in equitable easement—whether conduct of Department of Conservation was reasonable—Ombudsman could not assist—effect of Court of Appeal decisionRequest 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 commentRequests 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) applyDepartment of Conservation enables arbitration when rents disputed by licensees occupying foreshore reserve in Marlborough Sounds
Case notesForeshore rentals charged—lack of appeal mechanism—Department of Conservation agreed to establish a rental arbitration clause in the Marlborough Sounds foreshore licences to enable licensees to challenge rental increases where conflict arose—Ombudsman did not uphold the complaint (about level of rental increase) but the outcome achieved ensures rental increases can be challenged in futureDepartment of Conservation’s actions concerning lease approval were unreasonable, causing stress and financial loss to complainant
Case notesA marine farming company applied for lease under Marine Farming Act—farm already in existence when application made under new legislation—DOC rejected new lease on basis it interfered with public’s usage—matter to go to Planning Tribunal—DOC then approved lease just before Tribunal hearing—complainants claimed the whole process unfair—Ombudsman investigated—DOC agrees to make ex gratia payment to complainantsCoal Corporation required to minimise dust problem
Case notesAdequacy of Action–Failure of Coal Corporation to alleviate a coal dust problem and coal fine pond encroachment in the direction of local residents’ houses