73 / 192
decision not to investigate the complaint as the accuracy of medical opinion was
outside the purview of the Ordinance and the Commissioner could not compel the
doctor to amend his medical opinion.
6.10
In AAB No. 2/2011, a credit report of the appellant issued by a credit reference agency
was found to contain incorrect personal data. The appellant’s name in English, gender
and previous addresses were wrongly stated. The report also showed that the appellant
was the principal of a credit card account with a past-due amount for which in fact the
appellant was not the principal debtor. The fact that the incorrect data might have
been relied upon and used by other credit providers caused concern and the AAB
directed the Commissioner to consider investigating further into the conduct of the
relevant credit providers to see if the credit reference agency was under a duty to
make the correction and supply that correction with reasons to those who had
previously requested and received the inaccurate credit report. In its decision, the AAB
expressed the following views:
94. ….Such duty arises from the moment inaccurate data was provided. The reason is that it is
only right in the interest of the recipient of the inaccurate data that they should be notified of
the inaccuracy, that it is commercial common sense that this should be done, that it is in the
public interest to ensure the integrity of a credit reference agency, and that it is in our view a
duty that should be readily implied, as a matter of law into the contractual relationship
between [the credit reference agency] and the credit providers receiving the credit report.
Any restriction or limitation of such duty on the part of [the credit reference agency] creates
the possibility of lack of any sufficient safeguards for [the credit reference agency] to provide
accurate data.
6.11
There are situations where the Commissioner is not in a position to decide whether an
expression of opinion is inaccurate, as illustrated in AAB No. 12/2011. The appellant, a
former member of a religious organisation, had a dispute with a female member
concerning whether the appellant had behaved inappropriately towards that female
member contrary to the faith of the religious organisation. The appellant requested
correction of his personal data mentioned in a letter sent by the religious organisation
leading to the removal of the appellant’s administrative rights in the organisation.
Upholding the Commissioner’s decision not to investigate the complaint, the AAB
expressed the following views:
45. … We think that this data is “opinion” within the definition of section 25(3) of the
Ordinance. What is to be considered “inappropriate conduct” should, in the present context,
be judged by what is considered such by the [religious organisation] rather by the
Commissioner. In other words, this is a matter which is best left to the [religious organisation] …
It is not a matter which the Commissioner can competently (in the words of section 25(3))
“verify”. Nor, we might add, would it be something which, given the particular circumstances
of this case, is practicable for him to verify …