The Office of the Ombudsman has released guidance for agencies on how the Official Information Act 1982 (OIA) and the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA) apply when AI is involved in a request. The Ombudsman also released practical guidance for requesters in parallel.
The overall message is that the existing rules still apply. AI does not create a new category of request or a new set of obligations. It does, however, change how some familiar problems arise, and the Ombudsman expects agencies to keep a clear record of how they use it.
What that looks like in practice depends on where AI shows up in the request.
1. You receive a request that looks like it was drafted using AI
Is it a valid request?
Usually, yes. Using AI to write a request does not make it invalid. What matters is that a person decided to make it.
If the request seems to have been sent by an AI agent without specific human direction, for example while carrying out a broader research task the person gave it, you can contact the requester to confirm the request and who they are.
Do this quickly, because the 20 working day time limit keeps running while you check.
What if the request contains errors?
Errors do not make a request invalid. This includes references to case law or Ombudsman decisions that do not exist.
You can tell the requester where AI appears to have got something wrong, and correct any misunderstanding about how the OIA or LGOIMA works.
What if the request is unclear?
Contact the requester and help them clarify it, because you must give reasonable assistance.
If you ask for clarification within seven working days, the clarified request is treated as a new request, and the time limit starts again.
What if the request is very broad?
You can ask the requester to narrow it, provide the information in another form such as a summary, extend the time limit or charge. For example, the Chief Ombudsman allowed the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Infrastructure and RMA Reform to provide a summary of his AI chat logs in response to a request for all his chat logs with official and personal AI tools.
You can refuse for substantial collation or research, but only after you have considered charging, extending the time limit and consulting the requester.
What if you receive a large number of similar requests?
Repetitive or overlapping requests, including requests sent as part of a coordinated campaign, may be refused as vexatious where they amount to an abuse of the right to request information.
It is worth contacting the requester first to understand what they are after and whether they want to prioritise any of the requests.
2. You receive a request for your AI prompts and outputs
Is it official information?
Yes. If your agency uses AI for official purposes, the prompts and outputs it generates and keeps are official information.
This includes use of personal AI accounts by Ministers, local authority members or officials for official purposes.
When searching, check both your records management systems and the AI tool itself.
While the guidance is not explicit on the point, "prompts" may also include any system prompts held by your agency.
Do you need to have kept it?
The Public Records Act 2005 applies. Some prompts and outputs may be transient and could be disposed of under your agency's disposal authority.
Others may need to be kept, for example where they influenced or contributed meaningfully to a final document, action or decision, or where the prompt is needed to understand how the content was produced.
Can you withhold it?
Assess it against the usual withholding and refusal grounds, as you would any other information.
Inaccuracy (including hallucinations by AI) is not a reason to withhold. If you have doubts about accuracy, explain to the requester how you assessed the information and what you used it for.
For example, the Minister of Finance was asked for a policy paper that a Senior Ministerial Advisor had produced in a short time using Microsoft Copilot, as an exercise in exploring the use of AI. No decisions were made based on it. The Chief Ombudsman accepted that the paper could be withheld under section 9(2)(g)(i) of the OIA to protect the free and frank expression of opinions. His reasoning was that using AI tools to develop thinking is comparable to the early "blue skies" stage of developing policy advice. He also noted that there will generally be a public interest in knowing how far AI has been involved in advice and decision-making, so the example should not be read as a blanket exemption.
3. You want to use AI to help process a request
What can AI help with?
Triaging requests, searching records, drafting responses and summarising material.
Carrying out redactions, once withholding decisions have been made.
What safeguards apply?
Officials must check what AI produces. That means confirming searches have found what you would expect, that summaries fairly reflect the information, and that redactions have been made accurately and the text has actually been removed.
Make sure private, confidential and sensitive information is protected when using AI tools.
Tell the requester when AI was used and what checks your officials carried out.
Can you still refuse or charge?
Yes. Having AI available does not remove the substantial collation or research ground. If the work left for officials, such as reviewing what the AI tool has found, is still substantial, you can refuse the request.
You can charge for reasonably required review by officials. Where it is reasonable and AI was the most efficient way to retrieve and prepare the information, you can also charge for the cost of using AI, such as token usage.
What records should you keep?
Record what each AI tool was asked to do, the prompts and parameters it was given, and what it included or excluded and why.
If someone complains, the onus is on your agency to show its decision-making was reasonable and proportionate. If your records are incomplete, the Ombudsman may not be persuaded that the decision was administratively sound.
What this means for you
Check that your OIA and LGOIMA processes and your records management policies cover AI-generated information.
Make sure staff know that work done in AI tools, including on personal accounts used for official purposes, can be requested.
If you use AI to process requests, set up a simple way to record prompts, search parameters and the checks officials carried out.
AI can help you find and sort information more efficiently, but it cannot replace the judgement and legal analysis that responding to a request requires. Those decisions sit with your officials, who remain accountable for their choices.