Information Commissioner Timothy Pilgrim has found the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) failed to meet its obligations under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act by refusing to process some requests.

Key points: Ben Fairless complained to OAIC after his FOI request was ignored, which commenced an investigation

Ben Fairless complained to OAIC after his FOI request was ignored, which commenced an investigation Mr Fairless said his complaint took more than eight months to resolve

Mr Fairless said his complaint took more than eight months to resolve ATO declined to say when or if OAIC's recommendations would be implemented

The ATO started refusing to process FOI requests received via the Right to Know (RTK) website in August 2016.

Ben Fairless — one of the many people whose valid requests was ignored by the ATO — complained to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC), which commenced an investigation.

"I find that the ATO failed to process Mr Fairless's valid FOI request made through the RTK website," Mr Pilgrim said in a letter sent to the ATO.

"I recommend that the ATO process valid FOI requests made through the RTK website."

When contacted by the ABC about the commissioner's recommendations, the ATO declined to say when or if they would be implemented.

"The ATO is currently considering its position in light of the Information Commissioner's recommendation," a spokesperson said.

The commissioner's letter went on to note that should the ATO fail to adequately address the recommendation, an "implementation notice" could be issued.

Issuance of an implementation notice, if not complied with, could ultimately result in a report on the matter being tabled in Parliament.

Questions raised about adequacy of OAIC resourcing

Mr Fairless, who is also a volunteer for the OpenAustralia Foundation which runs the RTK website, said he was pleased with the result of the investigation.

"As citizens, we are really lucky to have an authority like the OAIC, who are responsible for looking after our right to know," he said.

"This application and process cost me nothing but time, and was simple and straightforward. The OAIC played a vital role in resolving this problem."

The only criticism Mr Fairless had was that his complaint took more than eight months to resolve, a criticism echoed by Peter Timmins, an expert in Australia's FOI system.

"The office struggles with timely disposal of both complaints and review decisions," Mr Timmins said.

"I think there's still a bit of an argument that they're under funded. The allocations, the appropriations, are less than what was appropriated in the 2013 budget. So in real terms, I think the money has gone backwards."

This week's federal budget saw the OAIC's funding and staffing levels left largely unchanged, despite the office having additional responsibilities stemming from changes to Australia's privacy laws.

Mr Timmins also said that with a target of resolving 80 per cent of complaints within 12 months, the performance measures appeared inadequate.

"It seems to me to be a very generous performance hurdle," he said.

"You'd like to see hurdles which talk about the number to be dealt with within a month and three months.

"And to think that getting rid of 80 per cent of things within 12 months is a satisfactory outcome, I'd sort of have my doubts about whether people who have lodged complaints and review applications would be satisfied with that."