The complainant alleged that a credit reference agency had incorrectly noted a default to a bank on his credit reference. The complainant said that this debt had been assigned to a company and had never been in default during the time that he owed it. The complainant requested that a notation be attached to his files stating that he disputed that the debt was in default. The agency had refused to delete the information from the complainant's file.

Information privacy principles 7 of the Privacy Act gives people the right to request that personal information held about them is corrected. Agencies holding that information have a corresponding obligation to:-

"take such steps (if any) to correct that information as are, in the circumstances, reasonable to ensure that having regard to the purposes for which the information may lawfully be used, the information is accurate, up to date, complete and not misleading."

I considered the issue of whether the credit reference agency had taken reasonable steps to ensure that the information they held about the complainant was correct. I asked the agency to provide me with information which showed the grounds for believing that the statement on the complainant's file was correct. The agency indicated that their client, the bank, had informed them that the debtor was in default. The agency advised that their policy when a listing is challenged is to check with their client and seek confirmation as to whether the listing should, in the client's view, remain on the file. If the client confirms the listing (as in this case) then the agency refers the individual concerned back to that client.

In my opinion this will be a reasonable practice in most circumstances. It is the client who holds the relevant information and who is in a position to check the indebtedness or otherwise of the individual concerned. I did not consider that the agency could reasonably be expected to go back to the bank and ask to access all the relevant background information and decide for themselves whether or not the complainant's version of the facts or the bank's version of the facts was correct. In fact, to require the agency to do this would raise other privacy issues. I formed the view that there was a proper basis for the credit reference agency's decision and that, in the circumstances, it had taken reasonable steps to ensure that the information at issue was accurate, up-to-date, complete, and not misleading.

I suggested to the complainant that the more appropriate agency for him to approach in order to resolve the matter was the bank and suggested he take the matter of disclosure by the bank to the credit reference agency up with them. As the decision to notify the default was made before the Privacy Act came into force on 1 July 1993, I did not have jurisdiction to deal with that matter. I suggested that if the complainant was unable to resolve the matter with the bank, then he may wish to take it up with the Banking Ombudsman.

The second ground of complaint concerned the notation the complainant had asked to have attached to his file. The credit reference agency provided me with a copy of their report on the complainant which showed that it had amended his file by including a notation stating that the complainant disputes that there was a default in relation to the debt reported by the bank.

Accordingly, I formed the opinion that this complaint did not have substance.

Credit Reference Agency - Incorrect Notation of Default - Request for notation to be attached stating that debt disputed - Information Privacy Principles 7 Privacy Act 1993.

Correction of personal information - Credit reporting agency - Refusal to delete information - Disputed debt - Statement of correction attached to file - Information privacy principle 7