A claimant receiving weekly compensation and other allowances from ACC lived with his wife on a farm and they offered a bed and breakfast accommodation. The ACC suspected that the claimant was working on his farm and that the home helpers it had provided were being used to assist with the bed and breakfast accommodation rather than providing the intended forms of assistance to the claimant.

The ACC asked a private investigation firm to investigate these matters. A private investigator posed as a potential guest and asked the claimant's wife about the day to day running of the business.

The ACC later told the claimant that his entitlement was being reviewed and asked him to attend a meeting. However, they were satisfied with his responses and the investigation was closed.

The claimant alleged to me that information about him had been collected from other people rather than directly from him.

Information privacy principle 2 provides that where an agency collects personal information it must be collected from the individual concerned, unless one of the exceptions applies. Principle 2(2)(d)(i) provides that an agency may collect information from another source if it believes, on reasonable grounds, that this is necessary to avoid prejudice to the maintenance of the law by any public sector agency.

The ACC submitted that people receiving compensation to which they were not entitled would be unlikely to co-operate with any investigation and would have good reason to be untruthful if asked direct questions. Where fraud was suspected, notifying claimants of an investigation could give them time to cover up any fraudulent behaviour.

I agreed that where fraudulent activity was suspected it was not reasonable to expect the ACC to approach the claimant first. I accepted that collecting information from people other than the suspect could be justified where the information was sought to confirm or refute a suspicion of fraudulent actions. The ACC is a public sector agency responsible for the administration of the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992, and its role includes investigating potentially fraudulent claims made under that Act. For these reasons, I formed the opinion that the ACC had reasonable grounds to believe that non-compliance with principle 2 was necessary to avoid prejudice to the maintenance of the law by a public sector agency.

The claimant also complained to me that the means of collection were unfair.

Information privacy principle 4 prevents agencies from collecting personal information by means that, in the circumstances of the case, are unfair or intrude to an unreasonable extent upon the personal affairs of the individual concerned.

I did not consider the visit to the claimant's bed and breakfast accommodation by a person posing as a potential customer to be unreasonably intrusive or unfair. The investigator did not appear to have obtained more information than any legitimate customer could have collected. The investigator questioned the claimant's wife, but not to the extent that she became suspicious of his motives. The methods used were not unfair or unreasonably intrusive given the circumstances and purpose of the visit. I concluded that principle 4 had not been breached.

December 1997

Indexing terms: Collecting personal information - ACC - Information collected from sources other than the individual concerned - Suspicion of fraud - Information privacy principle 2(2)(d)(i)

Collecting personal information - ACC - Information collected by unfair means - Information privacy principle 4(b)