An owner's letter of requisition to management company - part of the content was related to the function of the subcommittee - the management company disclosed the name and address of the owner who wrote the letter to the subcommittee - Owners' Committee to give response to the relevant owner - DPP3
The Complaint
The Complainant was a resident of a development. He wrote to the management company of the development raising queries about its handling of an incident concerning leakage of underground pipes. The Complainant requested in the letter to be informed of the views of the owners' representatives. The management company replied to the Complainant in writing. The Complainant found that the reply letter which contained his name and address had been copied to the subcommittee of the Owners' Committee. As a result, members of the subcommittee knew his name and address. The Complainant believed that the management company had inappropriately disclosed his name and address to the members of the subcommittee without his consent, and it had contravened DPP3. Thus a complaint was lodged with the Privacy Commissioner.
Findings by Privacy Commissioner
Upon preliminary enquiry, the Privacy Commissioner found that the purpose of collecting the Complainant's name and address was to handle and give response to his queries, including the queries to the owners' representatives raised by the Complainant. The Owners’ Committee was established under the Deed of Mutual Covenant of the development, and its subcommittee was responsible for the repair and maintenance work of the development. In order to handle the queries raised to the owners’ representatives by the Complainant, the management company had to revert the queries and its reply to the owners' representatives. Therefore, the sending of a copy of the reply letter containing the name and address of the Complainant to the subcommittee should be the same as or directly related to the original purpose of data collection, and there was no contravention of the Ordinance. The Privacy Commissioner opined that investigation was unnecessary and decided not to carry out any investigation. Dissatisfied with the Privacy Commissioner's decision, the Complainant lodged an appeal with the AAB.
The Appeal
The AAB found that, from an objective point of view, the Complainant's letter to the management company included at least one query addressed to the owners' representatives. The purpose that the Complainant supplied his name and address were to confirm that he is an owner of the development and to enable the owners' representatives to contact him in replying to his services. Thus, the disclosure of the Complainant' name and address to the subcommittee of the Owners' Committee by the management company had not contravened DPP3.
The AAB Decision
The Appeal was dismissed.
uploaded on web in January 2009