A mobile telephone subscriber - telephone service contract had expired - subscriber gave verbal extension for 15 months with penalty for early termination - subscriber terminated the account early - the telecom company passed data to a debt collection agent to recover the sum of the outstanding amount including a penalty - used for a directly related purpose - DPP3.
The Complaint
The complainant was a mobile telephone subscriber. After expiration of the fixed term service contract of 12 months, the marketing staff of the telecom service company approached the complainant by phone and offered an extension of service at a concessionary rate for 15 months subject to a penalty of $500 for early termination. The complainant continued to use the telephone service for about 8 months but then terminated the account. The telecom service company sought to recover the outstanding telephone bill as well as the penalty. The complainant disputed the right of the telecom service company to claim for the penalty and the transfer of his personal data to a debt collection agent for recovery, in breach of DPP3.
Findings of the Privacy Commissioner
The Privacy Commissioner found that the telecom service company had collected the personal data of the complainant for the purpose of providing telephone services. The use of the complainant's personal data for handling his account, including the recovery of any outstanding amount, was for a purpose directly related to the original purpose of collection. Evidence of the telephone conversation that took place between the complainant and the staff of the telecom service company on renewal of the contract, and the fact that the complainant used the renewed service for 8 months, was relevant in showing the right of the telecom service company to recover the outstanding amount. The Privacy Commissioner was also satisfied that the personal data transferred to the debt collection agent was necessary for taking recovery action. Thus, no prima facie case of contravention of DPP3 was made out. Dissatisfied with the Privacy Commissioner's decision not to investigate, the complainant appealed to the AAB.
The Appeal
In his grounds of appeal the complainant used the argument that there was no binding contract on the extended use of the telephone service, as no written confirmation on the renewed terms was sent to him, and that no "cooling off" period was offered. He also stated that the telecom service company did not send him the bill before asking the debt collection agent to recover the debt on their behalf.
The Board took the view that most of the grounds of appeal raised related to consumer rights and commercial practices which fell outside the ambit of the Ordinance for which the Board had no jurisdiction to hear. The complainant was advised to pursue other channels in seeking redress. In deciding whether there was contravention of DPP3, the Board gave due regard to the fact that there was a provision in the original contract that the customer agreed to the use of his personal data for debt recovery purposes. In addition, there was no dispute about the telephone conversation that took place on the terms for continued use. The complainant did continue using the telephone service but then terminated the account prematurely. In the circumstances the Board agreed with the findings of the Privacy Commissioner that the transfer of the personal data to the debt collection agent was for the same or a directly related purpose, consistent with DPP3.
The AAB's Decision
The AAB upheld the Privacy Commissioner's decision and dismissed the appeal.