EJE v Commissioner for Fair Trading [2022] NSWCATAD 33 | Case summary

NCAT Administrative and Equal Opportunity|2021-07-26

reasons for decision

In these reasons the Applicant's name has been anonymised as "EJE" so as to preserve the privacy of their personal affairs.
The Applicant seeks administrative review of various conduct of the Respondent under the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (the PPIP Act).

Background

On 6 July 2020, the applicant lodged an application for administrative review with the Tribunal under s 55 of the PPIP Act, identified by the Tribunal as proceedings 2020/200690. That application named both Service NSW and Fair Trading as respondents.
On 4 September 2020, in the context of case management by the Tribunal of proceedings 2020/200690 the applicant sent an email to the legal representative for both respondents in proceedings 2020/200690, requesting an internal review regarding alleged breaches of the PPIP Act arising from "information collected, stored and disclosed that is inaccurate within Departments of Fair Trading and Service NSW". On 7 September 2020, the legal representative for both respondents replied to the applicant's email of 4 September 2020, concluding that there had been no breach of the PPIP Act in relation to the issues identified by the applicant in the annexures to her application in proceedings 2020/200690. On 8 September 2020, the applicant provided a response, expressing the view that there remained outstanding matters that were not sufficiently dealt with in the letter of 7 September 2020. On 23 September 2020, the applicant provided further particulars about her complaints by email.
On 22 October 2020, both respondents in proceedings 2020/200690 indicated that they would treat the applicant's email of 4 September 2020 as a request for internal review. On 23 October 2020, both respondents filed an interlocutory application seeking an order dismissing proceedings 2020/200690 on the basis that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear them, as the applicant had not requested an internal review prior to commencing them.
On 23 February 2021, the respondent in these proceedings completed an internal review and provided it to the applicant. The respondent found that there was no breach of the PPIP Act by its conduct complained of in the email of 4 September 2020 and informed the applicant that: "Lease agreements are contracts under which one party agrees to rent a property owned by another party. If you do not agree with the personal details contained in a lease agreement, you would need to contact the agent or landlord directly to discuss this. You are then welcome to provide NSW Fair Trading with updated copies should you wish to do so".
It is that internal review with which the applicant is not satisfied that is the subject of these proceedings.
On 16 March 2021, Senior Member Christie determined the interlocutory application in favour of the respondents, dismissing proceedings 2020/200690: see EJE v Service NSW and Commissioner for Fair Trading [2021] NSWCATAD 62.
On 17 March 2021, the applicant commenced these proceedings by way of application for administrative review, on the grounds of "failure to conduct administrative review sufficiently. Breach of privacy under privacy and personal information protection act 1988". She attached to her application some 34 pages of documents including a copy of the Internal Review decision dated 23 February 2021, a covering letter from the Crown Solicitors Office dated 10 November 2020, emails from her to the Tribunal and between her and the Respondent dated 4 September 2020, 20 August 2020, 8 September 2020, a copy of the decision in EJE v Service NSW and Commissioner for Fair Trading [2021] NSWCATAD 62, a photocopy of a health care card expiring 4 May 2021, a copy of the Tribunal's orders of 10 March 2021 in proceedings 2020/19480, a receipt from Service NSW for the filing fee for this application dated 17 March 2021, and an email from her to the Tribunal dated 17 March 2021.
The Applicant's complaints regarding the Respondent's conduct are numerous and variously introduced in her emails of 4 September 2020, 23 September 2020, her emails to the Tribunal, and her submissions received by the Tribunal on 5 July 2021. The respondent compiled a list of the Applicant's complaints including their source, with cross referencing to repeated complaints, for the assistance of the Tribunal in consistently and systematically addressing each complaint. I have partially reproduced that table as Annexure A to these reasons for decision, and will refer to each complaint accordingly.
In Annexure A and throughout these reasons for decision I have redacted the names and addresses of the Applicant and other individuals who may identify the Applicant. The Applicant and Respondent have a copy of Annexure A as submitted by the Respondent, which contains those names and addresses in unredacted form.

Legal Principles

The PPIP Act regulates the manner in which NSW Government agencies, including the Respondent, and certain other entities deal with and manage personal information. Sections 8 to 19 of the PPIP Act set out the twelve IPPs that govern the way in which an agency (in this case the Respondent) must collect, store, access, use and disclose personal information. Schedule 1 to the HRIP Act sets out the fifteen HPPs that govern the way in which an agency must collect, store, access, use and disclose health information.
Section 4 of the PPIP Act defines ''personal information'' as follows: (1) In this Act, personal information means information or an opinion (including information or an opinion forming part of a database and whether or not recorded in a material form) about an individual whose identity is apparent or can reasonably be ascertained from the information or opinion. (2) Personal information includes such things as an individual's fingerprints, retina prints, body samples or genetic characteristics. …
The Tribunal's review jurisdiction in these proceedings is the alleged conduct and contravention by the Respondent of IPPs pursuant to sections 52(1)(a) and 55(1)(a) of the PPIP Act. The Tribunal's role ''is to decide what the correct and preferable decision is having regard to the material then before it": s 63(1) of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (ADR Act). In the context of the PPIP Act, ''decision'' refers to the conduct in which the administrator is alleged to have engaged and which is the subject of a request for internal review: ADR Act, s 7.
With reference to the Internal Review decision of 23 February 2021, the Applicant's complaints allege breaches of the following IPPs: 1. IPP 4 (s 11(a) of the PPIP Act): 11 OTHER REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO COLLECTION OF PERSONAL INFORMATION If a public sector agency collects personal information from an individual, the agency must take such steps as are reasonable in the circumstances (having regard to the purposes for which the information is collected) to ensure that-- (a) the information collected is relevant to that purpose, is not excessive, and is accurate, up to date and complete, and (b) the collection of the information does not intrude to an unreasonable extent on the personal affairs of the individual to whom the information relates. 1. IPP 8 (s 15 of the PPIP Act): 15 ALTERATION OF PERSONAL INFORMATION (1) A public sector agency that holds personal information must, at the request of the individual to whom the information relates, make appropriate amendments (whether by way of corrections, deletions or additions) to ensure that the personal information-- (a) is accurate, and (b) having regard to the purpose for which the information was collected (or is to be used) and to any purpose that is directly related to that purpose, is relevant, up to date, complete and not misleading. (2) If a public sector agency is not prepared to amend personal information in accordance with a request by the individual to whom the information relates, the agency must, if so requested by the individual concerned, take such steps as are reasonable to attach to the information, in such a manner as is capable of being read with the information, any statement provided by that individual of the amendment sought. (3) If personal information is amended in accordance with this section, the individual to whom the information relates is entitled, if it is reasonably practicable, to have recipients of that information notified of the amendments made by the public sector agency. (4) This section, and any provision of a privacy code of practice that relates to the requirements set out in this section, apply to public sector agencies despite section 25 of this Act and section 21 of the State Records Act 1998 . (5) The Privacy Commissioner's guidelines under section 36 may make provision for or with respect to requests under this section, including the way in which such a request should be made and the time within which such a request should be dealt with. (6) In this section (and in any other provision of this Act in connection with the operation of this section), "public sector agency" includes a Minister and a Minister's personal staff. 1. IPP 9 (s16 of the PPIP Act): 16 AGENCY MUST CHECK ACCURACY OF PERSONAL INFORMATION BEFORE USE A public sector agency that holds personal information must not use the information without taking such steps as are reasonable in the circumstances to ensure that, having regard to the purpose for which the information is proposed to be used, the information is relevant, accurate, up to date, complete and not misleading.

Consideration

As discussed above, the Applicant's has made numerous complaints against the Respondent, which have been compiled into Annexure A for ease of reference. Some complaints were expressed for the first time in the Applicant's submissions, received by the Tribunal on 5 July 2021.
The Applicant submitted at hearing that her complaints against the respondent involved three issues for which she sought administrative review in the Tribunal. First, she claimed that the internal review decision did not address all of the matters and concerns she had raised with the Respondent. Second, she complained that there was inaccurate use of her identity in relation to lease agreements and rental bonds. Third, she complained of two separate tenancy identifications, which she said were a separate complaint not previously raised.
The Applicant complained that the Respondent had referred to conversations with someone purporting to be her, but had not confirmed with that individual that it was her. She claimed that someone was posing as her and using her address fraudulently.
The Applicant complained that she had been experiencing twenty or so years of issues because the Respondent had not checked whether her identification was correctly recorded or presented. She said she had received no outcome as a result of her many complaints. She sought orders from the Tribunal ensuring policy changes at the Respondent agency.

Jurisdiction

The Tribunal agrees with the Respondent's submissions that it is not open to the Applicant to raise new issues in these proceedings that were not considered on internal review or fall within the scope of the internal review request.
The Tribunal's jurisdiction in these proceedings is limited to review of conduct that was the subject of the internal review application, such that "the Tribunal cannot review any conduct that was not the subject of the application to the agency": Department of Education and Training v GA (No. 3) [2004] NSWADTAP 50 at [7]; see also CWA v NSW Department of Education [2017] NSWCATAD 287 at [14] and the cases cited therein. It is "a fundamental premise of the Act that the agency first be given an opportunity to review the conduct": OD v Department of Education and Training (GD) [2005] NSWADTAP 74 at [13]. This was confirmed and reiterated to the Applicant in the Tribunal's decision of EJE v Service NSW and Commissioner for Fair Trading [2021] NSWCATAD 62. However, as referred to by this Tribunal in EJE v Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages [2021] NSWCATD 92 at [56], the Applicant continues to conflate her various complaints against the Respondent and other entities: "I record my impression that EJE is juggling many complaints with BDM. They are hard to keep track of. Her correspondence demonstrates that she is inclined to treat them as one ongoing and evolving dispute, rather than as discrete and separate issues. The system of administrative review under the PPIP Act is confined to the review of specific conduct which took place at a point in time prior to the internal review of that conduct. It does not allow for evolving disputes but confines [its] considerations to specified conduct that occurred before a complaint is made. It is important to keep complaints and the evidence relating to them separate and apart".
The Tribunal's jurisdiction in these proceedings is therefore limited to the conduct the subject of the applicant's email of 4 September 2020, as clarified by reference to the applicant's email of 23 September 2020 and the applicant's annexures to the application filed in proceedings 2020/200960, as addressed in the internal review of 23 February 2021. Importantly, of that conduct, only the conduct of the Respondent, and not any other agency, is relevant to these proceedings.
This has significant bearing on the Applicant's complaints as compiled in Annexure A, which has been derived partly from her correspondence dated 4 September 2020 and 23 September 2020. Her correspondence and the Department of Customer Service's response of 7 September 2020 addressed conduct by both agencies, because both agencies were respondents to proceedings 2020/200690.

The evidence and submissions

The Applicant provided the Tribunal with a number of identity documents to support her complaints of inaccurate data recording and mistaken identity by the Respondent. These included a photograph of herself, a copy of a residential tenancy agreement made on 21 April 2020 for an address at Lake Cathie, a copy of a rental bond receipt lodged 8 May 2020 for the same address as the residential tenancy agreement at Lake Cathie, a page from a lease for an address in Bonny Hills from June 2017, a Notice of Termination for the lease for the address in Bonny Hills dated 28 March 2018.
The Tribunal accepted, based on the evidence before it at hearing, that the Applicant has been known by and has legally registered several different versions of her full name, including some versions with and without one or two different middle names, and two different last names. Following the conclusion of the hearing and reservation of the Tribunal's decision, the Applicant continued to send the Tribunal "evidence" purporting to support her complaints. This included photocopies of her passport, drivers licence, application to the Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages for a change of name, birth certificate, her student identification for university, medicare card, a credit card, a certificate of marriage dated to 1988 for other individuals, a health care card application, residential tenancy agreement from 2015, change of name certificate from 23 April 2016, and documents from the registration of her own birth. Having reviewed those records, the Tribunal does not consider them to have any impact on the issues subject to the Tribunal's review.
On 12 March 2020 the Applicant complained to the Respondent that she believed she was the subject of identity theft, misuse and fraudulent activity by various real estate agencies. She claimed that multiple leases had been lodged using her and her partner's identities and that rental bonds paid by her had not been lodged, that "someone is using out identities within NCAT", and that there were inconsistencies between the leases, rental bonds, water and electricity accounts and bills which were fraudulent.
The Respondent requested contact details and further information from the Applicant in order to investigate her allegations. The Applicant then claimed to not receive material sent to the contact addresses she had provided, and provided the Respondent with an additional contact email address and phone number. A new case file was provided to the Applicant due to the change in contact details, which resulted in further inquiries and complaints from the Applicant. On 30 March 2020 the Respondent informed the Applicant that it had reviewed the information provided by her but had not identified a breach of the legislation administered by it.
On 31 March 2020 the Applicant responded, stating that she was not satisfied with the outcome, "It's evident my identity had been used fraudulently by real estate agents and ncat won't do their job properly either therefore what's my option now? Please call me. My address is currently…". The Applicant gave four separate addresses for her "current address". The respondent replied the same day, suggesting that she contact the NSW Police in relation to her concerns of identity theft.
On 19 May 2020 the Applicant made an application to Customer Service NSW for access to information pursuant to the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2013 (GIPA Act) for: All documents held by your department with my known used and legal names being:…
The Applicant provided eight different names which she alleged were her "known used and legal names", and a single birth date.
On 19 June 2020 the Department of Customer Service responded to the Applicant's request for information, enclosing voluminous documents held under the eight different names by Revenue NSW, NSW Fair Trading, and NSW Births, Deaths and Marriages.
On 6 July 2020 the Applicant sought administrative review in this Tribunal against the Respondent and Department of Customer Service for: Breach of privacy. Fair Trading refuses to act on my complaints properly and my one complaint no. turned into 3 numbers. My identity is being used fraudulently in Fair Trading. Service NSW states I spoke to them in relation to fines received in Lithgow. I have never been to Lithgow or received fines there nor spoke to Service NSW about it.
That application became the subject of the Tribunal's decision in EJE v Service NSW and Commissioner for Fair Trading [2021] NSWCATAD 62.
On 6 August 2020 the Applicant made a complaint to the Respondent regarding inaccuracies in the documents she had received from the Department of Customer Service.
As summarised in EJE v Service NSW and Commissioner for Fair Trading [2021] NSWCATAD 62: … the online complaint emails and web chat in relation to the Applicant's Complaints numbered 1261850, 10114807 and 10114745 and all correspondence and discussions in relation to them, submitted as Annexures to the AR Application and included the Respondents' Bundle of Documents, constitute the Applicant's relevant IR Request to the Respondents. The Applicant's Complaint numbered 12618540 is a request made by the Applicant to the first Respondent with respect to the amendment application filed by the Applicant with the NSW Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages for the Applicant and certain of the Applicant's family members (RBDM Amendment Application). In summary, on 11 and 12 May 2020 the Applicant requested that amendments be made to the receipts given in respect of the RBDM Amendment Application to name the Applicant consistently on each receipt. On 14 May 2020 the Applicant telephoned an officer of the first Respondent and requested that the mailing address be changed on the RBDM Amendment Application. This complaint was referred to the NSW Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages and is the subject of separate proceedings presently in the Tribunal (Tribunal proceedings 2020/00194180). The Applicant's Complaints numbered 10114807 and 10114745 relate to an issue raised by the Applicant with the second Respondent on 12 March 2020, an allegation of identity theft, misuse and fraudulent activity performed by real estate agents. These included allegations that multiple leases were lodged using the identity of the Applicant and the Applicant's partner against incorrect properties and multiple electricity accounts were incorrectly held in the Applicant's name. From 13 March 2020 until 31 March 2020 the Applicant and a staff member of the second Respondent communicated with respect to these complaints.
Tribunal proceedings 2020/00194180 resulted in the published decision of EJE v Registrar of Births Deaths and Marriages [2021] NSWCATAD 92, which was dismissed. These proceedings and the complaints being administratively reviewed therein arose from the Applicant's complaints raised with the Respondent on 12 March 2020 regarding identity theft, misuse and fraudulent activity by real estate agencies.
The Respondent filed documents with the Tribunal pursuant to s 58 of the ADR Act on 27 April 2021. During the hearing it became apparent that the documents filed by the Applicant in proceedings 2020/200690, which were relevant to these proceedings because they included the Applicant's hand written complaints, had not been provided to the Tribunal. These were provided to the Tribunal at its request by the Respondent shortly after the conclusion of the hearing on 26 July 2021.
The Applicant filed evidence and submissions on 5 July 2021. The Respondent filed its submissions, including its compilation of the Applicant's complaints in a table which I have extracted into Annexure A to these reasons for decision, on 9 July 2021.

Complaints 1 to 3, made in email of 4 September 2020

The Applicant's email of 4 September 2020 to the Department of Customer Service was provided in the context of the Tribunal's case management of proceedings 2020/200690. It stated the following: In relation to the documentation provided to you for NCAT matter 2020/200690 received under GIPA I request an review as it is evident documentation clearly shows that Fair Trading and Service NSW holds inaccurate information in relation to my identity. I also want you to investigate whether information is being collected, stored and disclosed accurately, professionally and whether privacy has been breached meaning, information collected, stored and disclosed that is inaccurate within Departments of Fair Trading and Service NSW as it's evident it isn't being. I refer to the PPIP Act. I also want you to investigate whether policies, procedures and guidelines used by FAIR TRADING/Service NSW are having a harmful effect on me and my family due to information not being collected, stored, disclosed accurately as if this is the case then Fair Trading/Service NSW has failed in their duty of care, especially when it has had negative effects on my mental health and being discriminatory against me.
At hearing the Applicant submitted that she was not complaining only of the Respondent's use of her personal information, but that they failed to ensure the personal information they held of hers was accurate. She submitted that the provision of documents to her by the Department of Customer Service constituted "use" by the Respondent under the PPIP Act. I disagree that the Department of Customer Services providing access to information to the Applicant pursuant to a request under the GIPA Act would generally constitute "use" by the Respondent of the Applicant's personal information within the meaning of the PPIP Act. "Use" under the PPIP Act has generally been considered in the context of an agency using information for its own purposes: Department of Education and Communities v VK [2011] NSWADTAP 61 at [20].
I agree with the Respondent's submission that the complaints (itemised as Complaints 1, 2, 3 in Annexure A) are generalised complaints which are particularised further and subsumed in other complaints, which the Tribunal will address below.
The detailed response provided by the Department of Customer Service in its letter to the Applicant dated 7 September 2020 demonstrates that it conducted the investigations requested by the Applicant in her email of 4 September 2020 and addressed the voluminous material she had provided in support of her complaints in Tribunal proceedings 2020/200690.
The respondent submitted, and the Tribunal accepts, that to substantiate her complaints against the respondent the Applicant must demonstrate that the Respondent collected her personal information, and that it "used" that personal information within the meaning of s 16 of the PPIP Act. Section 16 of the PPIP Act does not impose an absolute requirement that all information used by it be accurate, only that it take "such steps as are reasonable in the circumstances to ensure that, having regard to the purpose for which the information is proposed to be used, the information is relevant, accurate, up to date, complete and not misleading".
The Respondent acknowledged that there may be differences in the way it recorded and collected data, and in the records it held. The Applicant's complaints originated from the recording of data by individuals and agencies outside of the Respondent - in documents provided by real estate agents, landlords, applications made by individuals to the rental bond board, etc. However these did not amount to a breach of the PPIP Act in circumstances where it had taken steps which were "reasonable in the circumstances" to ensure the quality of that data.

Complaints 4-10, 19, 20, 22, 24-26, 30, 31 and 44

Complaints 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 26, 30, 31 and 44 identified in Annexure A were submitted by the Respondent to relate to the conduct of Service NSW, which is not a party to these proceedings and is a separate public sector agency for the purposes of the PPIP Act. The respondent is part of the Department of Customer Service, which is distinct from Service NSW. That is not the case here and the conduct of Service NSW is outside of the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The Tribunal agrees.

Complaints 11 and 12

Complaints 11 and 12 relate to the conduct of the NSW Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages. As discussed above, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in these proceedings to review that conduct.

Complaints 13, 21 and 55

The Applicant complained that in the Respondent's records she was listed as a co-tenant at an address at Port Macquarie, with a bond application in her name, in circumstances where she had never lived at that address.
The Applicant had sought documents with any information relating to eight different iterations of her first, middle and last names. The name recorded by the Respondent on the particular tenancy at Port Macquarie was similar to a first and last name used by the Applicant. As explained to the Applicant in the Internal review decision of 23 February 2021, other than the first name and last name which were similar to some of the Applicant's names: There were no other identifiers provided when this bond was lodged and that NSW Fair Trading does not collect a date of birth for online bonds for anyone other than the Principal Tenant when they create their account. The personal information provided with a bond lodgement is provided by the tenant(s). Unfortunately due to the way the information is captured, I am unable to establish, with certainty, if the bond lodged for [address redacted] Port Macquarie relates to you.
The Applicant submitted that "no other person by the name of [redacted] resides in the community", so therefore the information in question must be referring to her, and therefore be her personal information which was inaccurate. I do not accept without further evidence that there is or was no other individual with a similar first and last name to the Applicant.
I accept on the balance of probabilities the Respondent's submission that the information likely relates to another person of a similar name, but that the Respondent is unable to prove this because no additional details were provided by that individual for the purpose of clarifying their identification.
The information is not the Applicant's "personal information" and there is therefore no breach of the relevant provisions of the PPIP Act, as there is no "collection" or "use" of her personal information. Even if the Tribunal accepted that the information related to the Applicant and was therefore her personal information, there is no "use" by the Respondent for its own purposes. The Applicant did not identify any "use" of this information by the Respondent within the meaning of s 16 of the PPIP Act.

Complaints 14, 15

Regarding Complaint 14 referred to in Annexure A, the Tribunal is unable to understand the nature of the complaint that "Current bond lodgement receipt lodged online (no rental bond loan) paid cash" in the context of the PPIP Act.
Complaint 15 refers to "page 12 of the handwritten pages", which were provided with the Applicant's submissions in proceedings 2020/200690. Page 12 refers to inaccuracies said to be included in a lease agreement from an address in Kingswood in the name of four persons including the Applicant. The Applicant requested the real estate agent change the lease agreement to include six persons. The Applicant complained that the real estate agent had included inaccurate information, including an invalid address, and that "reason to believe multiple leases & bonds as NCAT papers have been created falsely", on the basis of orders published by this Tribunal's Consumer and Commercial Division on 15 October 2019. The Tribunal is unable to ascertain how exactly the Respondent is alleged to have collected, used or inaccurately recorded information within the meaning of the PPIP Act in relation to these circumstances.
An agency can only respond to privacy complaints that are made in a comprehensible form: see generally NZ v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police [2007] NSWADT 263 at [25]. The Tribunal accepts the Respondent's submission that this complaint would therefore be outside of the Tribunal's jurisdiction in these proceedings.

Complaint 16 and 37

The Applicant complained that two rental bonds were lodged under two different agency names. The Respondent stated that it was only able to locate one bond for the particular premises. Without further information the Tribunal cannot determine the veracity of your complaint and has not been able to ascertain how it is said by you that the Respondent's conduct breached a provision of the PPIP Act.

Complaint 17

The Applicant complained that a bond was lodged under her name only, but the bond loan was obtained by her and her partner. She submitted this constituted inaccurate use by the Respondent of her personal information. The respondent submitted that any inconsistencies between leases, rental bond lodgement forms and bond loans are matters for the parties to the lease or loan agreement to identify. Its role under the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 s 157A, and Pt 8 generally, was to accept, hold and make payments of rental bonds, not to review leases or bond loans. I accept that explanation and cannot ascertain what conduct by the Respondent is alleged to have breached a particular provision of the PPIP Act in the circumstances.

Complaint 18

The Applicant complained that her complaints to the Respondent were given multiple internal references. She requests an explanation for the complaint numbers used by the Respondent to address her complaints, and as to why she was contacted by different employees of the Respondent.
The Tribunal agrees with the Respondent's submission that this complaint does not identify any breach of the PPIP Act.

Complaint 23

The applicant obtained information under the GIPA Act regarding her current lease at Cathie Lake, some of which was redacted pursuant to s 74 of the GIPA Act. The Applicant complained that redacting the information breached s 16 of the PPIP Act.
The deletion of information provided to an access applicant pursuant to s 74 of the GIPA Act is not a breach of s 16 of the PPIP Act. The fact that information provided to an access applicant is redacted does not mean that the information held by the agency is not complete, and it is the information held by the agency to which s 16 of the PPIP Act is directed.

Complaints 27 and 46

The Applicant complained that the address of Best Value Real Estate, an agent involved in one of her rental leases, was not accurately recorded in documents she had obtained. The lease included the address as "129 B Queen Street, St Marys" and the Applicant claimed the address was "129 Queen Street, St Marys".
The respondent explained that the document in question was not completed by Fair Trading but lodged with it by the parties to the rental lease. I accept that explanation.
The Respondent submitted that the address of the real estate agent is information about the real estate agent, not information about the applicant, such that it is not her personal information. I agree. I also agree that the applicant has not identified any use of this information by the respondent, and that it was reasonable for the Respondent to rely on the accuracy of information about a lease that was provided by the parties to that lease.
Additionally, the Respondent referred the Tribunal to publicly available information recording the real estate agency's address in accordance with the Applicant's lease agreement.
I find no breach by the Respondent of any provision of the PPIP Act in relation to this complaint.

Complaints 28 and 29

Complaints 28 and 29 concerned the Tribunal's case management of unrelated proceedings in the Consumer and Commercial Division. These are not complaints as to an alleged breach of the PPIP Act by the respondent and are therefore not relevant to these proceedings.

Complaint 32

The Applicant made a number of complaints in relation to the tenancy records for a lease at an address in Bonny Hills: "Lease agreements from [address redacted], Bonny Hills NSW 2445 show variation of name. One shows [name redacted] and other shows [name redacted]. 2 different landlords. 1 being [name redacted] other being [name redacted] Pty Ltd ATF [Name redacted] Family Trust. I signed lease with Professionals Laurie though documentation states Property Haven also held a lease in my name for same premises. Have 3 weeks' notice prior to vacate on 29/3/18 yet was given termination notice dated 28/3/19. Lease expired prior to vacate so why was I given a termination notice a day prior to vacate and professionals Laurie had knowledge I was vacating. Bond judgement form shows professionals marketing as agent. Document shows bond was not lodged by professionals Laurie until 7/9/17 though I obtained bond loan for premises and moved into premises in June 2017. Bond refund shows $815 went to professional Laurie, $545 to housing NSW though I received $45 refund. Service NSW fine sent to [address redacted] Bonny Hills NSW 2445 after I had handed in New licence and obtained QLD licence in QLD. Service NSW therefore had knowledge I was not at that premises so why send fine there service NSW and Fair Trading have breached section 16 of PPIP as it has failed to record information accurately, ensure it was not false or misleading. (Documents in part 21 of file)"
The respondent provided copies of the relevant documentation to the tribunal. On my review of those documents, the rental bond lodgement forms show two joint owners of the property, and a separate entity as landlord / managing agent, not two different landlords.
The respondent acknowledged that the agent's name was incorrectly listed as "Property Haven" in its internal records, but included the correct agency name in documents relating to the repayment of the bond. The Respondent submitted that this was not a breach of s 16 of the PPIP Act because the electronic record demonstrated that the bond of $815 was refunded to the correct agency in its capacity as the tenancy's managing agent, in accordance with the applicant's request. There was therefore no failure of the Respondent to check the accuracy of the information before its use. I agree with the Respondent's submission on the evidence before the Tribunal.
I also agree with the Respondent's submission that the identity of the landlord's agent would more properly be characterised as personal information of the agent or the landlord, than personal information of the applicant, and the applicant has not identified any harm to her caused by this inaccuracy.
In relation to the applicant's complaint about a termination notice served on her, these are not relevant to the Respondent's conduct. Similarly, her complaint that she received $45 Housing NSW is not relevant to the Respondent's conduct, nor is the allegation that Service NSW sent a fine to this Bonny Hills address after she had obtained a Queensland licence.
In relation to her complaint that Professionals Laurieton did not lodge the bond until 7 September 2017, when she obtained the bond loan and moved into the premises in June 2017, the Tribunal accepts the Respondent's submission that there is no inaccuracy demonstrated in circumstances where a bond can be lodged on a date after a bond loan is obtained or a tenant moves into the premises.

Complaint 33

The Applicant complained that date the bond was lodged for her tenancy at a Lake Cathie address in 2015 was later than the date she obtained the bond loan or moved into the premises. The Tribunal agrees with the Respondent's submission that this does not disclose a contravention of the PPIP Act.

Complaint 34

The Applicant complained that her name was not recorded correctly on bond documents for her tenancy at Lake Cathie in 2015, as it identified her by her first and last name only, instead of including her two middle names as well. She also complained that the bond did not record the names of her children as tenants on the lease.
I accept the Respondent's submission that a failure to include the Applicant's middle names on the bond record does not constitute a breach of any provision of the PPIP Act. The evidence also demonstrates that the rental bond lodgement form, lodged with the Respondent on 14 July 2015, listed the Applicant with one middle name, and the claim for refund of the bond was completed in the Applicant's first and last name only. Any inconsistency is entirely the result of the Applicant's completion of these forms.
There is no inaccuracy demonstrated by the Respondent not including the Applicant's children's names on the bond records. Even if the applicant's children were listed on the lease, it does not follow that they would necessarily be listed on the bond lodgement form, or that a failure of the Respondent to record their details would amount to a breach of the PPIP Act. As discussed above, the Respondent's role is to accept, hold and make payments of rental bonds, not to deal with leases and rental bond loans. There was no use of the applicant's personal information by the Respondent which could give rise to a breach of s 16 of the PPIP Act.

Complaint 35

The Applicant sought verification that the respondent had records of only one lease in her name at a particular time period. The respondent submitted that it could not verify how many leases were in an individual's name as it did not deal with leases. The respondent stated that it had records of only one rental bond for the time period identified by the Applicant.
I cannot ascertain how the Applicant alleges the Respondent's conduct in relation to this complaint contravenes a provision of the PPIP Act.

Complaint 36

The Applicant complained that her tenancy at Bonny Hills in 2015 showed two agencies held lease agreements "using her identity". She complained that the notice of termination did not contain her middle name, and that the bond was lodged by one agency and paid out to another.
The evidence provided by the Respondent shows that the agent's name was Port City Realty. The applicant's claim for refund of bond money, which was signed by her, shows that Port City Realty's account at the Port Macquarie branch of the Commonwealth Bank was named "James Real Estate Pty Ltd". This does not demonstrate that there were two real estate agencies involved in the receipt or payment of the bond.
The Tribunal accepts on the evidence before it that there is no inaccuracy in the Respondent's records in relation to this complaint.

Complaints 38 and 63

The Applicant complained that the bond loan, lease and bond documents for her tenancy at Bonny Hills from 2012 to 2013 contained inaccuracies. She complained that the bond was lodged under her name but the bond loan was obtained jointly by her and her partner. The lease agreement contained a different version of her name, her partner's name and her four children's' names.
The respondent's evidence showed that the rental bond lodgement form lodged with it on 5 July 2012 was in the first and last names only of the Applicant and her partner. It did not include all four of her names, her partner's middle name, or any of their four children.
I accept the Respondent's submission that it took such steps as were reasonable in the circumstances to ensure the accuracy of information, and that it was appropriate for it to rely on the parties to the lease to provide information that was accurate.
The respondent acknowledged that the agent for this lease was listed as Port Macquarie Hastings Real Estate Centre Pty Ltd in its internal records, while the bank details and rental bond lodgement were for LJ Hooker in Port Macquarie. The records indicate that the bond was paid out on 10 October 2013 and there was no dispute lodged. In the circumstances, even if the Tribunal accepted (which it doesn't for the reasons discussed above at 63) the information was the Applicant's "personal information" within the meaning of the PPIP Act, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the information was actually inaccurate, or that its accuracy wasn't checked before its "use" by the Respondent in paying out the bond. Accordingly the Tribunal finds no contravention of s 16 of the PPIP Act in relation to this complaint.

Complaints 39-43 - Lease agreements from 2006-2012

Complaints 39 to 43 inclusive concern leases held by the Applicant between 2006 and 2012. The Respondent submitted that it held no records of any bond from the applicant's lease agreements at these addresses, other than in the form of documents filed in proceedings 2020/200690. This may be due to the fact that s 157A of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010, which relevantly provides for the online bond service operated by the respondent, was only inserted into that Act in 2014: Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014 Sch. 1, cl. 1.14.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the evidence provided by the Applicant demonstrates any contravention of the PPIP Act in relation to these complaints.

Complaints first made in the Applicant's submissions

As discussed above, the Tribunal agrees with the respondent's submission that complaints made for the first time in the Applicant's submissions in these proceedings, being complaints 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 60, 61, and 62, do not fall within the Tribunal's review jurisdiction. Complaints 55, 59 and 63 are repetitive of complaints 13 and 21, 32 and 38 respectively and are addressed above.

Conclusion

The Tribunal has not found any contraventions of the PPIP Act by the Respondent with respect to the Applicant's complaints.
Even if the Respondent's conduct amounted to a contravention of the PPIP Act, which it hasn't, the Applicant has not identified any particularised damage or harm suffered as a result of the alleged breaches of the PPIP Act, in circumstances where any alleged harm or damage must be "because of" or "caused by" a contravention of the PPIP Act: see CPJ v The University of Newcastle [2017] NSWCATAD 350 at [25]. The Applicant has not met the onus of establishing a causal link between a breach of the PPIP Act and any damage suffered: see AOZ v Rail Corporation NSW (No 2) [2015] NSWCATAP 179 at [29]; DED v Randwick City Council [2017] NSWCATAD 327 at [60].
The correct and preferable decision is therefore to affirm the Respondent's reviewable decision of 23 February 2021, and to take no further action in accordance with s 55(2) of the PPIP Act.

Orders 1. The respondent's reviewable decision of 23 February 2021 is affirmed pursuant to s 63(3)(a) of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997. 2. Pursuant to s 55(2) of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998, the Tribunal decides to take no further action.

Annexure A Complaints made by applicant Ref # Complaint Complaint repetition: cross reference Email of 4 September 2020:

                                                                                                                                                                            "It is evident documentation clearly shows that Fair Trading and Service NSW holds inaccurate information in relation to my identity"

                                                                                                                                                                            "I also want you to investigate whether information is being collected, stored and disclosed that is inaccurate within Departments of Fair Trading and Service NSW as it's evident it isn't being"

                                                                                                                                                                            "I also want you to investigate whether policies, procedures and guidelines used by FAIR TRADING/Service NSW are having a harmful effect on me and my family due to information not being collected, stored, disclosed accurately as if this is the case then Fair Trading/Service NSW has failed in their duty of care"

Handwritten complaints re Service NSW contained in the 231-page annexure to the administrative review application filed in proceedings no. 2020/200690 contained in the annexures 4. In the documents following your handwritten page 4, there are contact centre notes bearing an "SDRO" code indicating that the "Location" is "Lithgow". These are Revenue NSW documents originating from its call centre in Lithgow . You state: "Never spoke to anyone from Lithgow. I have never been to Lithgow" 5. Page 6: "On papers given to me from sale Variant number is PT4DRTO though on papers given to me at Port Macquarie Service NSW on 16/7/2020 the variant number is PT4DRT (no O)" 6. Page 8: "'AvalooA' on papers though when bought the vehicle & transferred registration it states Avalon on Service NSW papers. Green slip also states it as Avalon". See Complaint 24 7. Page 8: "I never put postal address as [address redacted], Lake Cathie, yet when I called Service NSW to ask who changed my postal address they could not locate any record of the event" See Complaint 25 8. Page 8: "Engine number states IMZ6078372" though actual number on engine was/is IMZFE" See Complaint 26 9. Page 18: "I never put $200 as purchase price as I paid $2000" See Complaint 30 10. "Amendments done by me in person at Service NSW Wauchope - receipts with variations of my name…. Asked attendant to provide consistent ones but she refused" 11. Case number 12618540 refers to a call on 14 May 2020 where you requested that the mailing address be changed for Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages (RBDM) amendment applications you lodged for you and your children. 12. "application to correct an entry" in the register of the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages (RBDM). 13. Page 5: "Have never been a co-tenant on a lease agreement at premises [address redacted] Port Macquarie NSW. Never applied for bond loan for the premises [address redacted] Port Macquarie. Identity theft and misuse" See Complaints 21 and 55 14. Page 6: "Current bond lodgement receipt lodged online (no rental bond loan) paid cash" 15. Handwritten Page 12 16. Page 23: "2 bonds lodged under 2 different agency names. 1 lease shows to have existed in [name redacted]" See Complaint 37 17. Page 24: "States bond lodged under [name redacted]. Obtained bond loan in both mine & [name redacted] name" Email of 23 September 2020 18. "Explanation as to why my complaint made to Fair Trading complaint no: 10114745 turned into complaint no: 10114807 and was not addressed by Julie who I originally made complaint to or by Marapeet Thurkal who took the complaint over. (Part 2 on file provided)" Number 1 in applicant's list of 23 September 2020 19. "On 23/06/18 I lived at [address redacted], Surfers Paradise QLD 4217 and never had any dealings with service NSW (sanctions lift) document in part 4 of file. Explanation required." Number 2 in applicant's list of 23 September 2020 20. "11/03/19 confirm restrictions lift (parramatta). I lived at [address redacted] Surfers paradise QLD 4217 and never had any dealings with service NSW nor spoke to anyone.(Document in part 4 of file). Explanation required." Number 3 in applicant's list of 23 September 2020 21. "Have never been co-tenant at [address redacted], Port Macquarie NSW 2444 nor applied for bond loan on that premises. (Document in part 5 of file) Fair Trading is breaching part 16 of PPIP as it has failed to ensure information is accurate, up to date, relevant, not misleading." Number 4 in applicant's list of 23 September 2020. See Complaints 13 and 55 22. "On registration papers provided to me off owner of Chrysler PT 2009 model it states variant number is PT4DRTO though on papers provided to me off service NSW, Port Macquarie on 16/07/2020 variant number is PT4DRT (no o). Explanation required and service NSW has breached part 16 of PPIP as information is not accurate, misleading, not up to date and falsely recorded. (Document s n part 6 of file)." Number 5 in applicant's list of 23 September 2020. See Complaint 6. 23. "Current lease agreement at [address redacted] Lake Cathie NSW 2445 shows lease, in my name, is held by an agency. Agency blacked out. I want access to this blacked out information, my bond number. Fair Trading has breached section 16 of PPIP as information held is inaccurate, misleading, not up to date or relevant. I hold private lease on [address redacted] Lake Cathie NSW 2445 (Document in part 6 of file provided). Number 6 in applicant's list of 23 September 2020 Verification no rental bond was obtained for current premises at [address redacted] Lake Cathie NSW 2445 as I paid cash in full for bond and received online receipt. (Document in part 6 of file)." 24. "Registration from past vehicle I owned states AVALOOA as make on papers though on papers received off Service NSW Penrith when I transferred the registration after purchase it states AVALON as make of vehicle. Service NSW has breached section 16 of PPIP as information is false, misleading, inaccurate. (Papers in part 8 of file provided)." Number 7 in applicant's list of 23 September 2020. See Complaint 6 25. "Postal address on papers obtained off service NSW states address as [address redacted], Lake Cathie NSW 2445. I did not provide this address to service NSW at any time. Service NSW has failed to provide explanation as to who changed address and when it was changed. Service NSW has breached section 16 of PPIP as information has not been recorded correctly, is not accurate, is false and misleading and service NSW failed to ensure information was accurate or up to date. (Part 8 of file provided)." Number 8 in applicant's list of 23 September 2020. See Complaint 7. 26. "Engine number on registration paper for Toyota AVALON shoes as being IMZ6078372 though on engine of same vehicle Toyota AVALON is stamped IMZFE. Service NSW has breached section 16 of PPIP as it has failed to ensure information was recorded accurately, is not false, misleading.(Document in part 8 of file provided)" Number 9 in applicant's list of 23 September 2020. See Complaint 8 27. "Lease agreement from [address redacted], Kingswood NSW 2747 shows agents address as 192 B Queen St, St Mary's when address is 192 Queen St, St Mary's NSW. I want verification off Fair Trading multiple leases did not exist in my name at the premises at [address reacted] Kingswood NSW 2747 from period of tenancy being 17/05/19 to 30/10/19." Number 10 in applicant's list of 23 September 2020. See Complaint 46 28. "I also want verification off ncat that tribunal hearings were not held in my name on any other date other than 1/10/19 In relation to [address redacted] Kingswood NSW 2747 as I did not have knowledge of, attend any hearing apart from on 1/10/19 and had amendments done to original orders made on 12/10/19 in person with D.Ash (member) to have co-tenants added to orders. (Documents in part 12 of file)." Number 10 in applicant's list of 23 September 2020 29. "Hearings held by ncat on 14 & 15th October 2019 in relation to [address redacted] Kingswood NSW 2747 in my name without my knowledge or consent. I want explanation and ncat has failed to ensure information was accurate, not false & not misleading in instances where my name has been used at NCAT proceedings. (Section 13 of file)." Number 11 in applicant's list of 23 September 2020 30. "Handed plates CJ13RY into service NSW Penrith on 8/8/19 and collected personalised plates TAM075 which were handed in on 10/07/2020 to Port Macquarie service NSW. Model shown of car on receipt dated 8/8/19 shows model of care is Toyota Active? Service NSW has breached section 16 of PPIP as it has failed to ensure information documented and recorded is not false inaccurate or misleading. (documentation in Part 17 of file)" Number 12 in applicant's list of 23 September 2020 31. "Transfer registration receipt dared 23/7/19 obtained off service NSW Penrith stares I paid $200 for car when receipt I provided to service NSW and registration transfer papers showed $2,000 as purchase price. Service NSW has breached section 16 of PPIP as it has failed to document and record information accurately. (Documents in part 18 of file)." Number 13 in applicant's list of 23 September 2020. See Complaint 9 32. "Lease agreements from [address redacted], Bonny Hills NSW 2445 show variation of name. One shows [name redacted] and other shows [name redacted]. 2 different landlords. 1 being [name redacted] other being [name redacted] Pty Ltd ATF [Name redacted] Family Trust. I signed lease with Professionals Laurie though documentation states Property Haven also held a lease in my name for same premises. Have 3 weeks notice prior to vacate on 29/3/18 yet was given termination notice dated 28/3/19. Lease expired prior to vacate so why was I given a termination notice a day prior to vacate and professionals Laurie had knowledge I was vacating. Bond judgement form shows professionals marketing as agent. Document shows bond was not lodged by professionals Laurie until 7/9/17 though I obtained bond loan for premises and moved into premises in June 2017. Bond refund shows $815 went to professional Laurie, $545 to housing NSW though I received $45 refund. Service NSW fine sent to [address redacted] Bonny Hills NSW 2445 after I had handed in New licence and obtained QLD licence in QLD. Service NSW therefore had knowledge I was not at that premises so why send fine there service NSW and Fair Trading have breached section 16 of PPIP as it has failed to record information accurately, ensure it was not false or misleading. (Documents in part 21 of file)" Number 14 in applicant's list of 23 September 2020 33. "Tenancy from [address redacted], Lake Cathie NSW 2445. Obtained bond loan in June 2015, moved into premises on 23/6/15 yet bond was not lodged by agent until 17/7/15." Number 15 in applicant's list of 23 September 2020 34. "Vacated premises 17/5/17. Terminated due to lease expiring. Signed lease with pre nationwide… information on documentation showing agent, states my name [name redacted] and no additional tenants, though 2 of my children, [names redacted] were on lease agreement and the lease agreement has 3 tenants." Number 15 in applicant's list of 23 September 2020 35. "I want verification only one lease agreement existed in my name for the above time period I held lease, that not more than one agent or one bond was lodged for premises in my name for that time period. (Documents in part 22 of file provided). Fair Trading has breached section 16 of PPIP as it has not ensured information collected is not false, misleading, inaccurate and up to date." Number 15 in applicant's list of 23 September 2020 36. "Tenancy from [address redacted] Bonny Hills NSW 2445 shows 2 agencies held lease agreements using my identity being Port City reality, who I signed lease with, and James Razi Real Estate. Vacated premises on 19/6/15. On notice of termination middle name is missing. Lease was terminated due to expiry of lease agreement and premises was sold. Bond lodged by James Razi Real estate on 31/10/13. Bond paid out to Port City Realty 3/7/15, name shows [name redacted]. Bond lodged 4/11/2013. Bond loan repaid on 31/12/14 to housing NSW." Number 16 in applicant's list of 23 September 2020 37. "2 lease agreements existed using my name, variations of [name redacted] Fair Trading has breached section 16 of PPIP as it has failed to ensure information was not recorded accurately, was not misleading, false. (Documents in part 22 of file)." Number 17 in applicant's list of 23 September 2020. See Complaint 16 38. "Lease agreement for [address redacted] NSW 2445. Moved into property, signed lease with L.J Booker Lake Cathie NSW 2445 on 15/6/12. Vacated premises on 1/10/13. States bond loan lodged under name [address redacted] yet bond loan was obtained in my name and partners/co-tenants [name redacted]. Document shows agents held lease in name [name redacted] for premises during same time period by agent named Port Macquarie Hastings Real Estate Centre. On lease agreement with L.J Booker Lake Cathie NSW 2445 was myself, [name redacted and our 4 children, [names redacted]. Fair Trading has breached section 16 of PPIP by failing to ensure information collected was accurate, not misleading, not false, relevant. (Documents in part 24 of file provided)." Number 18 in applicant's list of 23 September 2020. See Complaint 63 39. "Lease agreement from [address redacted], Bonny Hills NSW 2445 resided in premises from Number 19 in applicant's list of 23 September 2020 21/05/10 to 15/6/12. Lease signed in [name redacted] and [name redacted], our 4 children on agreement. I want verification off Fair Trading multiple leases did not exist for premises in variations of names for that time period or any other time (Part 25 of file provided)" 40. "[address redacted] Bonny Hills. Held lease agreement with Settlement First National, North Haven NSW 2445. Want verification multiple leases did not exist, multiple bonds lodged with FAIR TRADING in variations of our names. vacated premises 21/05/10.(Part 26 of file provided)." Number 20 in applicant's list of 23 September 2020 41. "[address redacted], North Haven NSW 2445 want verification multiple leases/bonds did not exist with FAIR TRADING between 2/5/2008 and 21/5/10 or at any other time in my name or variations of.(Part 27 of file provided)" Number 21 in applicant's list of 23 September 2020 42. "Lease agreement at [address redacted], Mooreland nsw 2445. Want verification multiple leases/bonds did not exist for time period 8/3/07 to 2/5/08 or at any other time in my name or variations of. Signed Lease with L.J Hooker wingham NSW. (Part 28 of file provided)" Number 22 in applicant's list of 23 September 2020 43. "[address edacted], North Haven NSW 2445. Want verification multiple leases did not exist in my name or variations of for time period 20/1/06 to 8/3/07 or at any other time. Signed lease with Raine & Horne, Laurieton NSW 2445. (Part 29 of file provided)" Number 23 in applicant's list of 23 September 2020 44. "Amendments to birth certificates done on 11/05/2020 x 3 amendments and 1 done in 12/5/2020 at Service NSW Wauchope NSW. I want verification off service NSW that no other birth certificate amendments were made at any service NSW in my name [name redacted] or variations of, explanation as to why receipts show [name redacted]. [name redacted], [name redacted]. I want verification no amendments were made at any other time to my 4 children's birth certificates, [names redacted], in their full names or variations of at any time at any service NSW." Number 24 in applicant's list of 23 September 2020 Applicant's Submissions 45. Unknown persons were communicating with Fair Trading in relation to property at [address redacted], Kingswood NSW 2747 from my once used email address [redacted]@gmail.com as late as 07/10/2020 (section 5, pg. 29-35 of respondents submissions received by NCAT 27/04/2021. Labelled Issue 1 The last date I used email address [redacted]@gmail.com was 29/10/2019 and vacated property at [address redacted] Kingswood NSW 2747 on 29/10/2019. Tribunal order clearly shows we broke lease agreement for the premises and were to vacate by 30/10/2019 (Annexure 4). It is evident [name redacted] had no reason to communicate with Fair Trading in relation to property at [address redacted] Kingswood NSW 2747 anytime after 30/10/2019 as tenants no longer resided at the property. Breach of IPP 4, IPP 1, IPP 9 (relevant, lawful, accurate). 46. Name on lease agreement as property owner for [address redacted] Kingswood NSW 2747 is listed as Raju Thomas. States agents address being Best Value Real estate St Mary's NSW on lease as being 192B Queen St, St Mary's NSW (pg. 39 of respondents submission). Water bill off Sydney Water shows property owner for [address redacted] Kingswood NSW 2747 as Ms. S. Raju & Mr R.Thomas (Pg. 232 of respondents submissions), not consistent with owner listed on lease agreement. Address for Best Value Real Estate St Mary's NSW is 192 Queen Street, St Mary's NSW therefore address shown on lease agreement is fraudulent. Fair Trading failed to identify inconsistent information when bond loan was applied for through Fair Trading. i.e property owner and address for real estate. Breach of IPP 4 , IPP 1, IPP 9 (relevant, lawful, accurate). Bond form for premises pg.36 of respondents submissions. Labelled Issue 2. See Complaint 27. 47. Current lease agreement for premises currently residing at shows no agent on lease agreement as we have no agent and lease privately yet, pg.207 of respondents submissions shows Madeline Halloway listed as agent. I spoke to owner of property Angus Anderson who stated both he and Madeleine Halloway should be listed as agents. Breach off IPP 4 & IPP 1, IPP 9 (relevant, lawful, accurate). Labelled Issue 3 48. On lease agreement states 4 persons can reside in property being myself [name redacted], partner [name redacted] and our 2 son's [names redacted]. Labelled Issue 3 49. Fair Trading allegedly tried to contact me on [number redacted] and states number was disconnected. This number is still valid and my current number and has never been disconnected (pg. 7,8,9 of respondents submissions). Labelled Issue 4 50. Fair Trading has failed to deal with my complaints stating they have obliged to their compliance role under provisions of Property, Stock and Business Agent 2002 legislation (pg.18 of respondents submissions) however I dispute this finding as my original complaint to fair trading 10114705 dealt with by a Julie Walsh which was then changed to complaint no: 10114807, again to complaint no: 10116214 and was done so as unknown persons using my identity were given assistance under my original complaint number off Fair Trading and given to Marapeet Thurkall who states my original complaint was handed to him by Julie Walsh on 26/03/2020 and was changed due to my previous email not working yet I received an email again on 31/03/2020 off Marapeet Thurkall to email [redacted]@gmail.com alleged to be not working. (Pg. 20 & 22 of respondents submissions). To date I have had no satisfactory outcome to my complaints and was informed to report to police which I have done and who have failed to act on the evidence provided. Labelled Issue 5 51. I at no time gave Julie Walsh from Fair Trading permission to share my personal information with Marapeet Thurkall from Fair Trading. Breach of IPP 1, IPP 4, IPP 11, IPP 9 (relevant, lawful, restricted, accurate). Labelled Issue 5 52. Items addressed re: documentation by myself [name redacted] to be reviewed by Fair Trading were not done so in entirety. In internal review response Paige Allen addressed, pg. 233-239 of respondents submissions, only some of the issues I asked to be reviewed. See response off Aaron Barillo, annexure 5, is inconsistent with internal review findings. Breach of IPP 9, accurate. Labelled Issue 6 53. All documentation contained in section 10 of respondents submissions received by NCAT on 27/04/2021 was at no time provided to me by Service NSW or Fair Trading prior to receiving it with respondents submissions. The documentation I was provided off Dorothy Markovic from Customer Service located in section 5 of respondents submissions received by NCAT on 27/04/2021 has much information blacked out that is shown in section 10 of respondents submissions. Labelled Issue 7 54. Pg. 34 of respondents submissions states my tenancy ID is 77427 however page 32 of documentation I received off Dorothy Markovic from Customer Service shows Tenancy ID as 70786 (Annexure 7). Breach of IPP 1, IPP 4, IPP 11, IPap 9 Labelled Issue 8 (relevant, lawful, restricted, accurate) has occurred as it's evident Fair Trading holds 2 different Tenancy ID numbers in relation to myself [name redacted] which is illegal. 55. Pg. 226 shows my name as [name redacted] with d.o.b as 10/05/1974 in relation to a lease agreement I never held at [address redacted], Port Macquarie NSW 2444. I have never resided at this property or signed a lease agreement for this property and it is alleged another [name redacted] did reside at this property however no other person by name of [name redacted] resides in this community. I have never held a lease agreement at any time with Percival Property. Percival Property refuses to provide me with information in relation to this lease agreement. I resided at [address redacted] surfers paradise QLD 4217 for the duration of this held lease agreement by a [name redacted]. Labelled Issue 9. See Complaints 13 and 21 56. 4 tenancy addresses are connected to premises I leased at [address redacted] Lake Cathie NSW 2445 from 14/11/2019 to 24/04/2020 and although I paid 2 weeks bond it was never lodged by the owner of premises [name redacted]. Addresses include [address redacted], Lake Cathie NSW 2445, [address redacted], Lake Cathie NSW 2445, and [address redacted], Lake Cathie NSW 2445. I received a document off ATO in address [address redacted], Lake Cathie NSW 2445, Lake Cathie NSW 2445 whilst living in premises however this was not my address. Fair Trading fails to address this matter raised. Lease agreement located section 12 of respondents submissions. Labelled Issue 10 57. I lodged bond for current premises at which I reside [address redacted] Lake Cathie NSW 2445 online with Rental Bonds Online on 26/04/2020 however Fair Trading has listed bond as being lodged on 08/05/2020 (annexure 8). Breach of IPP 1, IPP 4, IPP 11, IPP 9 (relevant, lawful, restricted, accurate). Labelled Issue 11 58. Respondents submissions only include from pg.12 to 32 of my submissions for this matter and is missing pg.1-12 of my hand written title pages with documentation included under each title page and documentation is not in order. Refer to my original submissions sent with my application to NCAT. Labelled Issue 12 Multiple agencies exist using variations of my identity in relation to lease agreements for premises at [address redacted] Bonny Hills nsw 2445. Pg.130-131 of respondents submissions clearly shows I signed lease in [name redacted] and my 2 son's [names redacted] could reside in property too, which they did for duration we lived in property. 59. Pg. 215 & 126 lists agent as Property Haven in name [name redacted] when I signed lease agreement with Professionals Laurieton NSW 2443 who lodged bond with Fair Trading (pg.216). Labelled Issue 13. See Complaint 32. Pg.125 of respondents submissions shows ne as [name redacted], annexure 9 shows name as [name redacted] with agent being professionals Laurieton as does email accepting me as a tenant for the premises and termination notice that was issued day prior to me vacating premises when professionals Laurieton had already been provided notice I was vacating premises 3 weeks prior to vacate date 29/03/2019. Bond number on all documentation is same, being E989172-0. Breach of IPP 1, IPP 4, IPP 11, IPP 9 (relevant, lawful, restricted, accurate). 60. Tenancy from [address redacted], Lake Cathie NSW 2445 pg Labelled Issue 14 221 of respondents submissions clearly shows I signed lease with PRD nationwide Laurieton NSW 2443 in name [name redacted] however lists multiple tenants as NO. Though on lease agreement was my 2 son's [names redacted]. 61. Pg. 104 of respondents submissions. Evicted due to fixed term ended pg.110 of respondents submissions. Pg.107 of respondents submissions clearly shows the bond was lodged under name [name redacted] which is not consistent with name on lease agreement. Breach of IPP 1, IPP 4, IPP 11, IPP 9 (relevant, lawful, restricted, accurate). Fair Trading failed to ensure information was consistent with lease agreement information and did not contact me to verify information before using said information. Labelled Issue 14 62. Premises at [address redacted] Bonny Hills NSW 2445 pg.211 & 136 of respondents submission shows lease signed with Port City Realty in [name redacted] and partner [name redacted] shows multiple tenants NO. However our 4 Children [names redacted] were listed on lease agreement. Bond lodgement shows bond lodged in name [name redacted] and [name redacted] and agent name as James Real Estate. Evicted from property, pg. 140 of respondents submissions. Labelled Issue 15 Pg. 214 of respondents submissions clearly shows bond was refunded to [name redacted] and [name redacted]. Breach of IPP 1, IPP 4, IPP 11, IPP 9 (relevant, lawful, restricted, accurate). 63. Lease agreement for [address redacted] Bonny Hills NSW 2445 pg. 209 & pg. 150 shows agent as Port Macquarie Hastings Real Estate Centre pty Ltd with tenants as [name redacted] and [name redacted] though shows multiple tenants NO. Our 4 children [name redacted] were listed on lease agreement. Steven and I signed lease with L.J Hooker Lake Cathie NSW 2445. Pg.210 of respondents submissions shows agent as LJ Hooker, Port Macquarie. Breach of IPP 1, IPP 4, IPP 11, IPP 9 (relevant, lawful, restricted, accurate). Labelled Issue 16. See Complaint 38.

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. Registrar DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 28 January 2022

EJE v Commissioner for Fair Trading

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (29 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (6)

Cited By (2)