iSAYSO
MPI states that, it is not common for people to be authorised to receive information from MPI only lawyers, WHY?
MPI has got to the point they do not want to correspond with anyone other than lawyers.
Dear Mr McCarthy,
Thank you for your response dated 15 May 2026 regarding OIA26-0274.
I request reconsideration and clarification of MPI’s response.
The response contains several important admissions:
1. MPI states that, other than lawyers, it is not common for people to be authorised to receive information from MPI on behalf of someone else.
2. MPI states that the OIA team does not have a documented process for confirming that someone is authorised to receive information on behalf of someone else.
3. MPI states that formalising this process is on the OIA team’s work programme.
4. MPI states that there are no instruments of delegation relating to a general decision-making power to recognise or reject an agent or representative.
Those admissions create a serious procedural fairness issue. MPI appears to be requiring compliance with an internal process while also confirming that no documented process or delegation instrument presently exists.
For clarity, my request was not simply a repeated request for Mr van den Bogaart’s personal information. It sought MPI’s own records, including policies, guidelines, manuals, internal instructions, legal guidance, emails, notes, decision records, privacy breach assessments, training material, and delegation material relevant to MPI’s handling of authority-to-act and representative recognition issues.
Those categories are separate from the question of whether personal information about Mr van den Bogaart should be released to me. MPI may redact personal information where a lawful withholding ground applies, but that does not justify refusing the whole request as vexatious under section 18(h).
Accordingly, please clarify:
1. What specific searches were undertaken for records relating to MPI’s handling of authorised representatives or agents?
2. What business units, teams, inboxes, systems, or staff were searched?
3. Whether MPI searched Legal Services, the Privacy team, the OIA team, investigator training records, and any case-management systems relevant to Gary van den Bogaart or Tracy Lynch.
4. Whether any documents exist recording MPI’s decision to accept, reject, question, or alter its position regarding my authority to act.
5. Whether any internal emails, file notes, legal advice requests, privacy team advice, or decision records exist concerning this authority issue.
6. If MPI says no such records exist, please confirm whether MPI’s position is that decisions about representative authority were made without any recorded decision note, internal reasoning record, or delegated decision-maker record.
7. In relation to the section 18(h) refusal, please identify the basis on which MPI concluded the request was vexatious, given that the request sought MPI’s own administrative records and decision-making material.
8. In relation to the section 18(e) refusals, please provide a description of the reasonable search undertaken and why MPI is satisfied the information does not exist or cannot be found.
9. In relation to training material, MPI states that investigator training identifies where legislation allows service of documents on a lawyer/representative. Please provide that training extract, with any necessary redactions.
10. In relation to MPI’s statement that no delegation instruments exist, please confirm who made or approved the operative decision not to recognise me as authorised, and under what role, policy, statutory power, or administrative authority that decision was made.
This is a request for clarification and reconsideration before escalation to the Ombudsman.
MPI’s response raises a broader concern that MPI may be applying an unpublished, undocumented, and non-delegated administrative standard to prevent recognised representatives from communicating on behalf of affected persons.
Please treat this as urgent, as the matter concerns access to information, procedural fairness, privacy compliance, and representative authority.
Yours sincerely,
Tracy Lynch