Case Citation: 

P v Tenancy Database [2007] PrivCmrA 18

Subject Heading:

Accuracy and currency of personal information

Law:

National Privacy Principle 3 in Schedule 3 of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth)

Facts:

The complainant rented a property, which was later repossessed by order of the Residential Tenancies Tribunal.  The Tribunal also ordered a payment be made to the landlord through the real estate agency managing the tenancy.

The responsibility for the property subsequently passed to a second real estate agency, and the Residential Tenancies Tribunal issued a second order for the complainant to make payment, through the original real estate agency.

Almost five years later, the second real estate agency made a listing of the complainant's name on a tenancy database, in relation to the earlier Tribunal orders.  The complainant noted that they never had any dealings with the second real estate agency, and contacted that agency to point out the length of time that had elapsed.  The complainant raised the issue with the tenancy database.

Issues:

National Privacy Principle 3 provides that an organisation must take reasonable steps to make sure that the personal information it collects, uses or discloses is accurate, complete and up-to-date.

Outcome:

The Privacy Commissioner investigated under section 40(1) of the Privacy Act.  In the course of the investigation, the second real estate agency was contacted to assist the Commissioner understand the facts of the complaint.

The second real estate agency told the Commissioner that the Tribunal's orders were made in favour of the landlord, not the agency, and that the landlord was entitled to change agents at any time.  They added that the delay in listing had been due to the mistaken belief that the complainant had already been listed on the database.

The Commissioner agreed that there was a relationship between the landlord and the agency, but did not agree that there was any relationship between the agency and the tenant. The listing by the second real estate agency onto the database created the false impression of a relationship between the complainant and the agency, and so the personal information could not be considered accurate.  In addition to this, the Commissioner found that the length of time which had passed rendered the information out of date as the information was no longer current.  As a result of this finding, the tenancy database removed the complainant from their records.  Satisfied that the complaint had been adequately dealt with, the Commissioner closed the matter under section 41(2)(a) of the Privacy Act.

OFFICE OF THE PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

June 2007