18 Nov 2019, 09:00

The Office of the Ombudsman referred a complaint to us from a man who had been overcharged by a water company. In his dispute with the company, the man asked for the water invoices sent to his neighbour because he believed the company had mixed up the water meter readings of the two properties.

The water company declined the request because the man’s name was not on that account and he was not authorised to view those invoices.

Original complaint

The man originally complained to the Office of the Ombudsman under the Official Information Act. But the Ombudsman transferred the complaint to us because it related to a request for personal information.

The complainant’s request was for copies of the invoices sent to his neighbour’s address so he could work out the difference himself in what he paid and what he should have paid for water usage.

Principle 6

The complaint raised issues under principle 6 of Privacy Act which states an individual is entitled to access personal information that an agency holds about them, unless a withholding ground contained in sections 27-29 of the Act applies.

Respondent’s explanation

We asked the water company to respond to the complaint.

The water company said it was withholding the invoices because the complainant was not the account holder to whom those invoices were sent, and they were the personal information of his neighbour.

The company said section 29 of the Act meant an agency could refuse to disclose any personal information requested, if the disclosure would involve the unwarranted disclosure of the affairs of another individual.

The company also said the privacy interests of the neighbour could not be protected by redaction of the invoices alone.

The company was willing to send the complainant information about water meter data, consumption rates and water charges relating to the other water meter.

Our investigation

This was a tricky case because it involved a dispute in which the information on the invoices that had been sent to the neighbour was information about the complainant. The company had mixed up the two water meters and their readings. The water meter data, consumption rates and water charges about the complainant had been put into invoice form and sent to the neighbour.

Our view was that the copying of the complainant’s information into a third party’s invoice did not make it the other person’s information.

The personal information about the complainant on the invoices was the invoice date, the current charges from the disputed billing cycle and the usage history. All other information could be redacted as it was not his personal information, including correspondence about the neighbour’s account. This could be easily achieved through redactions that would protect the privacy interests of the neighbour.

We decided the company should provide the information to the complainant in the form he requested, minus the redactions. Until this happened, we informed the company it had breached principle 6 and interfered with the complainant’s privacy.

In conclusion

The company declined to comply with our view. But it did send a table of information to the complainant which set out water meter data, consumption rates and water charges for the relevant periods. It said the table would enable the complainant to determine the accuracy of the water charges and, accordingly, his refund.

Our office does not have the power to order an agency to disclose information if it does not agree with our view. This will change under the new Privacy Act.

We have the discretion to refer a matter to the Director of Human Rights Proceedings who may take it as a case before the Human Rights Review Tribunal, but we decided not to in this case. This was an isolated issue and we did not see wider issues that needed to be resolved.

We informed the complainant of his right to take the matter to the Tribunal if he wished to pursue it further. We then closed the file.