A woman borrowed money from a private finance company. She had previously obtained loans from the same company and had listed her de facto husband as next of kin on the loan forms. The relationship with her de facto husband had ended before she obtained the new loan so she did not name him on the application form.

The former de facto husband noticed a letter from the finance company when he was in the borrower's house and believed she may have obtained a loan. He telephoned the finance company and asked for and was given details of the balance. He said he simply called, explained who he was, and was given the loan balance. The finance company said he was first asked to supply some information about the account.

I considered that oral or written authorisation should have been sought from the borrower before disclosing information about the account. The fact that the de facto husband was not the borrower should have alerted the company to take more steps to confirm that he was authorised to have the information he requested. Even if he had supplied details about the account, in these circumstances it did not provide reasonable grounds to believe that the borrower had authorised the disclosure of information to him. For these reasons, I formed the opinion that the finance company had disclosed information in breach of principle 11.

For a disclosure to constitute an interference with the privacy of an individual, it must be done in breach of information privacy principle 11 and result in one of the adverse effects listed in s 66(1)(b) of the Privacy Act.

In this case, I formed the opinion that the finance company had breached principle 11. I then had to consider whether that disclosure had an adverse effect on the borrower. It had caused friction and arguments between the borrower and her de facto husband, who took possession of her car, claiming he did so to protect his financial interest in it. In the circumstances, I considered the disclosure had caused a 'detriment' to the borrower, which is one of the adverse effects in s 66 and there was therefore an interference with her privacy.

The finance company sent the borrower a written apology. It also set out new procedures for answering requests over the telephone for information about loan accounts. The new procedures required staff to verify that the caller was the borrower and, if in doubt, to ask the caller to provide identification by fax, post, or by calling into the office. They also required authorisation to be sought from borrowers before disclosing information to third parties.

The borrower was not satisfied with the written apology. As the disclosure was made before 1 July 1996, I could not take any further action to resolve her complaint and discontinued my investigation.

Indexing terms: Disclosure of personal information - Finance company - Disclosure of loan balance to borrower's former de facto husband - Friction caused by disclosure is 'loss, detriment, damage, or injury' - Privacy Act 1993, s 66(1)(b)(i) - Information privacy principle 11

October 1998