The display in public by the management company of letter inviting an owner to attend Owners' Meeting to discuss matters concerning pending litigation while letter already been sent to her mailbox was held unnecessary and in contravention of DPP3.
Complainant was party to a Small Claim and Lands Tribunal Claim concerning management of the building - letter addressed to complainant inviting attendance at the Owners Meeting was posted by management company of the building - no deletion of name and address of complainant - not necessary for purpose of inviting other owners to attend the meeting - DPP3, section 50
The Complaint
The complainant, a resident of the building was involved in two pending litigations, i.e. a Small Claim filed by the management company and a Lands Tribunal claim lodged by the complainant against the incorporated owners of the building. Owners' Meeting was to be convened to discuss these pending litigations. Letter was sent to the complainant via her mailbox inviting attendance at the meeting. In addition, the management company also posted the letter in public areas of the building. The complainant complained to the Privacy Commissioner that her personal data, i.e. her name and address should not have been disclosed in public by the management company, which use was in contravention of DPP3.
Findings by Privacy Commissioner
The Privacy Commissioner found that the purpose of collection of the complainant's personal data was for the purpose of management of the building. The public display of the letter inviting her attendance at the Owners' Meeting and informing other owners about the two pending litigations the result of which would affect their interests as owners of the building was for the same and related purpose, i.e. in discharge of its management function and hence no prima facie case of contravention of DPP3 was shown.
The appeal
The Board agreed that the purpose of collection of the personal data of the complainant was for management of the building. However, in relation to the display in public of the letter, the Board took a different view. The Board ruled that such act was unnecessary for purpose of inviting the complainant to attend the Owners' Meeting as the letter had already sent into the mailbox of the complainant. It was also not necessary for purpose of informing the other owners the steps taken to invite the complainant to attend the meeting as the matters concerning the pending litigation could still be discussed by other owners at the meeting in the absence of attendance by the complainant.
However, in view of the fact that the letter in question had been removed by the management company, the Board agreed that the decision by the Privacy Commissioner not to issue an enforcement notice under section 50 of the PDPO be upheld.
The AAB decision
The Appeal was dismissed.