The complainant was a business partner in a company. He complained to me that a private investigator working for the other business partners had carried out a credit reference check on him without his authorisation.

At an early stage it was clear that the complainant's primary concern was that people might draw an adverse inference about a credit check having been made by a private investigator. In an attempt to resolve the matter, the private investigator asked the credit reporting company to suppress the record made of his enquiry. The credit reporting company suppressed the record, but the complainant still wished to pursue his complaint as he considered that his authorisation should have been sought.

I formed the opinion that the complaint did not have substance.

The private investigator explained that the other business partners had instructed him to undertake investigations on their behalf into some financial anomalies in the business. They had prepared an affidavit alleging that the complainant had misappropriated funds from the business. The purpose of doing a credit reference check was to ascertain whether he was involved with any other companies in order to trace the possible disposition of funds belonging to the business. Another purpose was to confirm the accuracy of the affidavit.

This complaint raised issues under information privacy principle 2, which limits the instances in which personal information can be collected from a source other than the person concerned. While it provides that this may occur when the person concerned has authorised it, this is not the only instance. Other exceptions are available.

Principle 2(2)(d)(iv) provides that agencies may collect information from another source if they believe on reasonable grounds that non-compliance is necessary for the conduct of proceedings before any court or tribunal. The proceedings must have been commenced or be reasonably in contemplation.

At the time of the credit check, civil proceedings in relation to the alleged misappropriation of company funds were in contemplation. The credit check was to confirm the accuracy of the information in an affidavit prepared for those proceedings. I accepted that the private investigator had reasonable grounds to believe that non-compliance with principle 2 was necessary for the conduct of proceedings.

Principle 2(2)(f) provides a further exception where the agency believes on reasonable grounds that compliance with principle 2 is not reasonably practicable in the circumstances. The private investigator needed a record of the complainant's credit history and, in the circumstances, I accepted that it was not reasonably practicable for him to obtain that from the complainant.

For these reasons, I formed the opinion that the complaint did not have substance.

Indexing terms: Collection of personal information - Private investigator - Credit reporting agency - Collection of credit reference in course of investigation - Proceedings contemplated - Collection from source not reasonably practicable -Information privacy principle 2(2)(d)(iv) & 2(2)(f)

December 1998