Subject: Complaint – MPI refusal under OIA section 18(h), OIA26-0298 and OIA26-0307
Dear Ombudsman,
I request an investigation into the Ministry for Primary Industries decision dated 11 May 2026, references OIA26-0298 and OIA26-0307, declining my requests under section 18(h) of the Official Information Act 1982.
MPI has characterised the requests as frivolous or vexatious. I dispute that characterisation. The requests were not abusive, repetitive for the sake of repetition, or made for an improper purpose. They were focused requests seeking identification of existing records that account for seized property, including authority, inventory, chain of custody, disposal/destruction decisions, outcome by item, and financial accounting.
Grounds of complaint
10. MPI has not answered the central request: where is the record trail that accounts for seized property and its disposition?
11. MPI has referred generally to criminal disclosure but has not identified the specific disclosure documents, dates, schedules, inventories, custody records, or destruction authorities said to answer the request.
12. MPI has not confirmed whether reasonable searches were conducted for the requested records.
13. MPI has not confirmed whether the relevant records exist, do not exist, are not held, or are held in criminal disclosure materials only.
14. MPI has not explained why a focused records-identification request is frivolous or vexatious.
15. MPI has used section 18(h) in a way that appears to avoid answering a proper accountability question about seized property and enforcement record-keeping.
Relief requested
I ask the Ombudsman to require MPI to reconsider the decision and either:
• identify the documents that record authority, inventory, custody, disposal/destruction, item outcome, and financial accounting for seized property;
• confirm clearly where those records are held, including document names, dates, and relevant disclosure bundle references if MPI relies on criminal disclosure;
• confirm what searches were conducted;
• confirm if any requested records do not exist or are not held;
• withdraw the section 18(h) characterisation if it cannot be properly justified.
This complaint is made because the matter concerns the accountability of a public enforcement agency, the handling of property, and the adequacy of record-keeping where statutory powers have been used.
Yours faithfully,
Simon Stott / Seacures Limited
iSAYSO