Credit provider provisions
Division 3 sets out the rules for credit providers. The rules mainly
apply to the handling of credit information or credit eligibility information
as well as rules in relation to specific types of personal information. The
rules apply to credit providers that are subject to the Australian Privacy
Principles (APPs) in addition to, or instead of the APPs. The following
discussion focuses on the major matters raised in relation to Division 3. Other
issues raised in relation to specific provisions are listed in appendix 3.
Subdivision B – Dealing with credit information
Subdivision B provides for the collection of personal information and
the disclosure of credit information to credit reporting agencies. Disclosure
to a credit reporting agency is prohibited unless certain obligations are met
including that the credit provider is a member of a recognised external dispute
resolution (EDR) scheme and that the information relates to someone aged at
least 18 years. This subdivision, at section 134, also provides for a
limitation on the disclosure of credit information during a ban period. This
matter was raised during the committee's hearings and discussed during the
consultations between Veda Advantage and stakeholders. The issues in relation
to ban periods are canvassed in chapter 4 of this report.
Section 131 – Additional
notification requirements for the collection of personal information
Section 131 provides that a credit provider, at or before the time of
collecting personal information about an individual, which is likely to be
disclosed to a credit reporting agency, must notify the individual of the
details of the credit reporting agency as well as notifying the individual of any
matters specified in the Credit Reporting Code or ensure the individual is
aware of those matters. These requirements are in addition to APP 5 for
The Australian Finance Conference (AFC) commented that the notification
requirement was a 'challenge' for credit providers, while Westpac added that it
would result in high compliance costs for credit providers.
Westpac stated that at the time of collection, credit providers may not know
which credit reporting agency or agencies will be used. Credit providers would
have to include all credit reporting agencies which, Westpac argued, would
involve significant costs 'when compared to the limited benefit to the
individual (insofar as CRAs are permitted to share this information)'. Westpac
recommended that the requirement be removed.
The National Australia Bank (NAB) noted that ALRC's recommendation on
notification included a 'reasonableness' test in relation to the provision of notification
by a credit provider to an individual. However, this has not been included in
section 131. The NAB commented that a reasonableness test is required for phone
applications to ensure that full notification disclosure can be provided as
reasonably practicable after the verbal application is received.
The AFC also raised this point and stated that a reasonableness test would
minimise compliance risk. The AFC submitted that a better approach may be to continue
the current practice of requiring a customer to be informed at, or before, the
time of collection in a general way about information exchanges between the
credit provider and credit reporting agencies. The requirement for the
provision of more specific details could then be at a later, more relevant
point, for example, when a query is raised about accuracy of data following an access
The Australian Privacy Foundation (APF) commented that the section
leaves the detail of content of the required notice to the proposed Credit
Reporting Code. The APF submitted that the detailed content requirements, as
well as more specific requirements as to the timing of notice, should be
included in the Act.
The committee notes that the ALRC commented that it is important that
there is a requirement that credit providers inform individuals about
information handling by credit reporting agencies. Recommendation 56–10
included that 'a credit provider must take such steps as are reasonable, if
any, to ensure the individual is aware of' certain matters.
The Government in accepting this recommendation stated that:
The Government agrees that more specific 'notification'
requirements should be placed on credit providers to provide notice to
individuals about not only the credit providers own information handling
practices but also about specific practices of a credit reporting agency. The
Government considers it is appropriate that this notification should occur at
or before the time of the collection of the personal information to be
disclosed to the credit reporting agency (ie at the time of applying for
credit) rather than at any other time.
These 'notification' requirements will ensure that
individuals are fully aware of how their information will be utilised in the
credit reporting system. Notice of credit reporting agencies' practices is
important given that individuals will most often not receive this information
directly from credit reporting agencies.
The committee notes comments about the lack of a 'reasonable test'. Informing
individuals about information handling practices is an important aspect of the
credit reporting regime. The committee considers that the notification
provisions of section 131 reflect this importance and it is appropriate that
credit providers have a clear obligation to inform individuals. Thus a
provision in relation to 'reasonableness' is not warranted. In addition, credit
providers have a direct relationship with individuals accessing credit and
therefore should ensure that their customers are fully informed of all aspects
of obtaining credit and doing business with the credit provider.
Section 132 – Disclosure of credit
information to a credit reporting agency
Section 132 prohibits the disclosure by a credit provider of credit
information about an individual to a credit reporting agency except where
certain obligations are met:
- the credit provider is a member of a recognised external dispute
resolution (EDR) scheme; and
- the provider knows, or believes on reasonable grounds, that the
individual is at least 18 years old; and
- the credit information does not relate to an act, omission,
matter or thing that occurred or existed before the person turned 18; and
if repayment history information is disclosed, the credit
provider is a licensee under the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009
(NCCP Act); and the information relates to consumer credit for which
the provider also discloses, or has previously disclosed, consumer credit
liability information to the credit reporting agency; and the provider complies
with any requirements relating to disclosure prescribed by regulations; and
if default information is disclosed the credit provider notifies
the individual in writing about the intention to disclose the information and a
reasonable period has elapsed since the giving of the notice.
A number of substantial matters were raised in relation to the EDR
scheme requirements. These matters are canvassed in the discussion on
complaints handling in chapter 5 of the report. Comments regarding the
requirement that the credit information does not relate to an act, omission,
matter or thing that occurred or existed before the person turned 18 were also
raised in relation to section 106. These matters are discussed in chapter 6.
The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) raised
concern about the 'gap' in regulation of credit providers' disclosure of
'credit information' collected from sources other than a credit reporting
agency, for example, collected from an individual in a credit application. The
'Credit information' is a central concept in the revised
credit reporting system. It includes information about an individual's current
and applied for credit accounts, their personal solvency, and certain court
judgments against them. The circumstances in which 'credit information' may be
disclosed is very significant to an individual. Serious consequences may arise
if it is disclosed to some third parties, such as insurers, employers or real
estate agents. Accordingly, it is important that a credit provider's disclosure
of all 'credit information' be subject to the same limitations, regardless of
The OAIC recommended that credit providers' disclosure obligations apply,
at a minimum, to all 'credit information' in addition to 'credit eligibility
information' (which only includes 'credit information' collected from a credit
reporting agency). The OAIC argued that this may also better reflect the
protection proposed in the Government Response.
Requirement for credit provider to
be a licensee
A credit provider must be a licensee under the National Credit and
Consumer Protection Act 2009 (NCCP Act) for credit information to be
disclosed to a credit reporting agency. Dun & Bradstreet submitted that
this has the effect of excluding a large number of organisations, such as telecommunication
companies and energy utilities, from fully participating in the credit
reporting system. Dun & Bradstreet argued that non-bank data is extremely
valuable in the credit assessment process so that the unavailability of this
data limits the capacity of the credit reporting system to meet the
Government's aim of improving lending decisions. Dun & Bradstreet also
pointed out that non-bank data has been included in the credit reporting
regimes of overseas jurisdictions as it:
is highly predictive of bank credit performance and therefore
critical for effective responsible lending practices, for example, consumers
who default on non-bank, low value debts (below $500) are 5.3 times more likely
to default again on any other type of debt, including financial services debt;
- plays a critical role in establishing credit worthiness, thereby
increasing the capacity for under-served consumers to access mainstream credit.
In particular, access to fringe markets only may impede an individual's ability
to overcome financial difficulties as they may only have access to credit
products at higher rates of interest than is available to the average consumer;
has an impact on collection practices – organisations prohibited
from reporting the data will be at a distinct disadvantage in the payment
While there are arguments that the inclusion of non-bank repayment data
will prevent some people from accessing mainstream banking products, Dun &
Bradstreet commented that there are greater benefits from better identification
of consumers experiencing financial difficulties and allowing other consumers
to access mainstream credit. In addition, Dun & Bradstreet pointed to
research which showed that entities that are able to report repayment
information acquire a distinct advantage when consumers prioritise their bills.
Consumers will pay the bills of those credit providers who report default and
repayment history to a credit reporting agency first. Those organisations that
are prohibited from reporting this data will be at a significant disadvantage
when seeking payment for services.
Dun & Bradstreet concluded that reporting of repayment information
by all credit providers should be permitted. It stated that, while permitting
non-bank credit providers to report repayment information to credit reporting
agencies presents challenges for the Government:
...research clearly demonstrates that non-bank data is highly
predictive of financial services credit performance and provides important
insight in the credit assessment process. As with bank data, the reporting of
repayment non-bank data provides even deeper insight. Accordingly, permitting
the reporting of this data can ensure the spirit, and not just the letter, of
responsible lending obligations are met while also improving access to
mainstream credit for currently under-served consumers. The reporting of this
data would also ensure non-bank credit providers are not disadvantaged in the
ARCA also supported making full comprehensive credit reporting available
to all credit providers, not just licensees as this would provide a fuller
picture of an individual's financial obligations.
Disclosure of default information
Paragraph 132(2)(e) permits the disclosure of default information if the
credit provider has given the individual a written notice of the intended
disclosure and a reasonable period has passed since the giving of the notice.
Both the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) and the APF commented on
the lack of a specific timeframe in the section.
The TIO noted that many of the complaints received from consumers
related to not receiving information about a default or that their credit
information was to be provided to a credit reporting agency. The TIO submitted
that it would perhaps be preferable for a credit provider to give a defined
period of notice to the individual as this would allow any potential grievances
to be identified and resolved early. In addition, the TIO supported a specific
timeframe after which a credit provider can disclose information to a credit
reporting agency. The TIO went on to state:
The provision that credit providers must wait 'a reasonable
period' after having notified the individual could cause confusion for
providers, individuals and EDR schemes tasked with assessing complaints. Also,
given that credit defaults are noted against a person's credit file for a fixed
period, it would seem fair that the listing be placed within a short period of
time so as not to disadvantage that person for a longer period of time.
Similarly, the APF stated that a 'reasonable period' is too subjective
and leaves the judgement to the credit provider. The APF suggested that a
minimum time period, such as 14 days, be specified. In addition, the APF
commented that there should be a fairness provision that requires credit
providers to consider any special hardship circumstances, such as
hospitalisation, natural disaster, bank error, etc. that they are aware of,
before listing defaults or adverse repayment history.
In relation to notification, the APF commented that 'there appears to be
a major gap in the scheme in terms of notification of individuals close to the
time that a CP lists default or SCI information with a CRA – the legislation
appears to allow a CP to rely on the initial notice given at the time the loan
was taken out, to warn borrowers of the risk of listing'. The APF stated that the
Act should require that consumers are notified at the time their personal information
is collected (at the time they apply for credit) as well as within a reasonably
short time period before any listing is made, irrespective of what notice has
been provided earlier.
Experian stated a different view. It noted that by the time the written
notice is provided to the individual, the payment will already be at least 60
days overdue and payment would already have been sought by the credit provider.
Experian submitted that credit providers should be able to provide the default information
to a credit reporting agency promptly after having notified the individual of
its intention to do so. In addition, a specific timeframe for provision of the
information should be prescribed under the Credit Reporting Code of Conduct.
Experian argued that a prescribed timeframe will achieve greater certainty both
for credit reporting agencies for receiving default information, and for
consumers in understanding when default information will be passed to a credit
reporting agency for the purpose of the individual making any access and
correction application. Experian also saw a timeframe prescribed by the Code as
being consistent with the overarching data quality obligations imposed on
credit reporting agencies and, in particular, ensuring that the credit
reporting information used and disclosed by the credit reporting agency is
accurate, up-to-date, complete and relevant.
The OAIC's submission highlighted concerns with credit providers'
disclosure obligations in relation to 'credit information' collected from
sources other than a credit reporting agency. The committee has noted these
concerns and considers that section 132 should be reviewed to ensure that
there is no 'gap' in the regulation of credit providers' disclosure of credit
information to a credit reporting agency.
7.23 The committee recommends that section 132 be reviewed to ensure that the
disclosure obligations on credit providers in relation to 'credit information'
protect all credit information collected by credit providers.
The committee has noted the arguments for allowing credit providers
which are not licensees under the NCCP Act to fully participate in the credit
reporting system. The committee was provided with information by Dun &
Bradstreet pointing to the benefits of non-bank data being disclosed to a
credit reporting agency. However, the committee notes that the Government's
position is clear in this regard. Moreover, the committee understands that it
was never envisaged that a fully 'positive' reporting system would be implemented,
rather a more comprehensive regime.
In relation to the timeframes for notification to an individual of the
disclosure of default information, the committee supports the need for greater
certainty. Individuals also need to be aware of the timeframe in which the
default information will be provided to a credit reporting agency.
7.26 The committee recommends that greater clarity be provided as to the
timeframes for disclosure of default information pursuant to paragraph 132(2)(e)
either in the Credit Reporting Code or in guidance from the Office of the
Australian Information Commissioner.
Subdivision C – Dealing with credit eligibility information etc
Subdivision C provides for the permitted uses and disclosures of credit
eligibility information. The subdivision also provides, in part:
- that APP 6 and 7 do not apply to a credit provider which is
an APP entity in relation to credit eligibility information and APP 9 does
not apply if the credit eligibility information is a government related
identifier of the individual;
- permitted CP uses in relation to credit reporting information
disclosed to the credit provider in certain specified circumstances;
- permitted CP disclosures between credit providers including if an
individual has given consent, in relation to guarantees, to mortgage insurers,
debt collectors, and to other recipients; and
notification provisions where an application for consumer credit
has been refused.
Section 135 – Use or disclosure of
credit eligibility information
Section 135 prohibits the disclosure and use of credit eligibility
information except in the circumstances provided. Westpac noted that section
135 does not contain an equivalent to section 18N(1)(gb) of Part IIIA of the
current Privacy Act which permits disclosure of the credit report or
information to 'another person who is authorised by the individual to operate
the account'. Westpac recommended that such a permitted disclosure be included.
The AFC and ANZ Bank noted that subsection 135(4) prohibits disclosure
if the credit eligibility information is, or was derived from, repayment
history information. The AFC stated that as there is a broad interpretation of
repayment history, the provision may result in limiting the information that
can be exchanged between credit providers under current credit reference
exchanges. The AFC suggested that this would be avoided if the repayment
history information in subsection 135(4) is limited to CRA derived information.
The ANZ Bank also stated that there are inconsistencies in permitted
disclosures provisions. It noted that the disclosure of credit eligibility
information, which includes repayment history information, to mortgage insurers
is permitted for 'any purpose arising under a contract for mortgage insurance
that has been entered into between the provider and the insurer'. However,
subsection 135(4) prohibits the disclosure of repayment history information.
The ANZ Bank went on to state that the removal of repayment history information
from credit eligibility information would be 'problematic due to repayment
history information being embedded in credit reporting information and credit
eligibility information'. In addition, access to repayment history information
is required by mortgage insurers, debt collectors and assignees so that they
can manage their portfolios and have accurate conversations with the consumer
about the debt due. The ANZ Bank recommended that section 135 be amended so
that repayment history information can be disclosed to entities such as
mortgage insurers, debt collectors and assignees as a permitted credit provider
The APF commented on paragraph 135(3)(b) which permits disclosure to a
related body corporate of the credit provider. The APF commented that ownership
should not override the purpose limitations. Rather, uses and disclosures by,
and to, 'related bodies corporate' should be subject to the same rules as for
other third parties. While section 153 (use or disclosure by a related body)
places some limits on related bodies corporate, the APF submitted that it does
not adequately address this concern. The APF concluded that 'this is a more
general criticism of the Privacy Act but has particular significance in the
context of credit reporting'.
The committee does not consider that section 135 requires amendment to
allow for the disclosure of credit eligibility information derived from
repayment history information. The Government was clear in its intention to
limit access to repayment history. As to problems with embedded data, the
committee considers this to be a data management issue and not one which should
impact on the credit reporting system. Similarly, the committee does not
consider that management of their portfolios by mortgage insurers or debt
collectors is a matter for the credit reporting system.
Section 136 – Permitted CP uses in
relation to individuals
Section 136 provides the permitted credit provider uses in relation to
individuals. Two of the permitted uses are for 'the internal management
purposes of the provider that are directly related to the provision or
management of consumer credit by the provider' and 'the purpose of assisting
the individual to avoid defaulting on his or her obligations'.
Consumer Action Law Centre (Consumer Action) commented that while
'internal management purposes of the provider that are directly related to the
provision or management of any credit by the provider' reflects the current
legislation, it is unclear what the 'internal management' purposes are. The
current Privacy Code provides the example of the building of scorecards.
However, Consumer Action noted that more information will be provided to credit
providers which 'would be of significant value to them in relation to marketing
to current customers' and the lack of clarity in defining 'internal management
purposes' could enable credit providers to use credit information to market credit
Consumer Action recommended that 'internal management purposes' be more
closely defined in the Credit Reporting Code. At the very least, Consumer
Action stated that the Act should state that as well as excluding debt
collection, the term 'internal management purposes' excluding adding
information to customer relationship databases and offering or suggesting to
the customer an increase in credit limit or other credit products.
Consumer Action commented that the provisions relating to assisting
individuals to avoid defaults should be more tightly defined as it appeared
that the provision allowed the credit provider on-going access to a consumer's
credit report and it could allow inappropriate marketing of additional credit.
While Consumer Action acknowledged the benefits of this provision, for example,
allowing the credit provider to reduce a credit limit, it could also be used in
ways to exacerbate hardship such as offering a credit limit increase, a
different type of credit card or debt consolidation. Consumer Action recommended
that item 5 be amended to specify that offers of further credit or additional
credit products, including debt consolidation, as it is not considered to be
'assisting the individual to avoid defaulting'.
The committee considers that the Credit Reporting Code of Conduct should
provide guidance in relation to the meaning of 'the internal management
purposes of the provider that are directly related to the provision or
management of consumer credit by the provider' and 'the purpose of assisting
the individual to avoid defaulting on his or her obligations'.
Section 137 – Permitted CP disclosures
between credit providers
Section 137 provides for permitted disclosures of credit eligibility
information between credit providers including:
- the individual expressly consents in writing;
- where a credit provider acts as an agent of another credit
- where there is a securitisation arrangement; and
- where both credit providers have provided mortgage credit to the
individual for the same real property.
Westpac commented that the reference to 'credit eligibility information'
in section 137 does not reflect business practices. Westpac stated that lenders
currently operate a 'Banker's Opinion'/reference service, based on consent
obtained from applicants, completely outside of the credit reporting environment.
This service discloses information sourced directly from internal systems and
does not rely on interaction with a credit reporting agencies. Westpac stated
that, 'as such, it is important to clarify that this service would not be
limited to "credit eligibility information" which brings in a
requirement to source information from a CRA'. If this was the case, Westpac
considered that it would introduce additional cost and complexity to what is a
relatively straight-forward and transparent process in the current operating environment.
The APF commented that the use of 'a' particular purpose in paragraph
137(1)(a) is 'too loose/permissive, as it could be read, in conjunction with
(b), as "any" particular purpose to which the individual has
consented'. The APF further stated that given the common practice of requiring
consent as a condition of financial transactions, this provision 'opens the
door for disclosures to other credit providers which are wholly unrelated to
either the particular transaction the individual has entered or the limited
exchange of credit reporting information allowed under this regime'.
The APF also commented that paragraph 137(2)(a)(i) appears to mean that
no consent is required for credit assessments. The APF viewed this as having
very significant implications and noted that under the current Act (Part IIIA),
consent is required. The APF commented:
We have been critical of this as consent is effectively mandatory
as a condition of a loan application – it is not freely given and cannot be
revoked. In such circumstances we have argued for 'notice and acknowledgement'
in place of consent, as a more accurate reflection of what is actually
happening. If the effect of s137(2)(a)(i) is to remove the requirement for
written consent then we submit that it needs to substitute an express
requirement for notice and acknowledgement.
In relation to the matters raised by Westpac, the committee notes that
consent is obtained for the Banker's Opinion/reference service. Further, if
this disclosure is outside the credit reporting system, it would appear that
the APPs would apply. The committee considers that this matter, and the matter
raised by the APF in the wording of paragraph 137(1)(a), should be further
addressed in either the Explanatory Memorandum or the Credit Reporting Code of
The committee also considers that the section should be reviewed to
ensure that the consent provisions are clear and that there has been no
lessening of the consent requirements for credit assessments as submitted by
Section 142 –Notification of a
refusal of an application for consumer credit
Pursuant to section 142, a consumer must be given written notification,
within a reasonable period, that an application for consumer credit has been
refused. The ABA questioned the provision of notification in relation to
applications where there is more than one individual. The ABA suggested that
this matter needs to be clarified and noted that subsection 18M(2) of the current
Privacy Act makes a clear distinction between the positions of an individual
applicant and joint applicants, and to whom, in the case of joint applicants,
such a notice is given. Alternatively, the use of 'individual' throughout could
include the other applicants. The ABA also commented that clarity is required
regarding whether the notice is given only to the individual (or individuals)
whose information resulted in the application being declined or to the other applicants
whose information would not have resulted in the application being declined.
The ABA commented that there would seem to be a privacy protection issue if
this is not made clear.
The TIO also considered that a notification under section 142 should,
where applicable, include details of relevant credit default listing(s),
including the name and contact details for the credit provider that requested
the listing(s). The TIO commented that this may be relevant where the
individual subsequently seeks to dispute the information upon which their
application has been refused, particularly as section 121 currently specifies
that it may take a credit reporting agency up to 30 days to correct an inaccurate
In relation to joint applications, the committee considers that this is
a matter for the Credit Reporting Code of Conduct or guidance from the OAIC.
Subdivision E–Access to, and correction of, information
Subdivision E provides for access to, and correction of, eligibility
information. The access provisions provide for exceptions to access, dealing
with requests, access charges and notification when access is refused. The
correction of credit information and credit eligibility information go to
notices of correction to recipients of the information, requests for
corrections and notices of corrections to individuals.
Section 146 – Access to credit
Submitters noted that section 146 requires credit providers to provide
credit eligibility information to access seekers on request. The ANZ Bank, ARCA
and the NAB argued that given the definition of credit eligibility information,
credit providers may be required to disclose commercially sensitive credit
assessment methodologies such as internal assessment scorecards and other
evaluative information that may be derived from credit reporting information as
there appear to be very limited circumstances in which access can be refused.
The ANZ Bank went on to note that the current credit reporting regime
does not require access to personal information where that access would reveal
evaluative information that was disclosed by a credit reporting agency.
Further, the ANZ Bank pointed to both the draft APPs and the NCCP Act and ASIC
Regulatory Guide 209 (RG 290) which provide for a limit to the disclosure of
commercially sensitive information. APP 12 provides that in the case of
commercially sensitive information, the entity may give an explanation for the
commercially sensitive decision rather than direct access to the information.
RG 209 requires a credit provider to ensure that the assessment given to a
consumer is 'concise and easy to understand' and includes reference to the
relevant factual information. However, ASIC has stated that is does not expect
the credit provider to disclose commercially sensitive information on which the
provider has based its decision.
The ANZ Bank and ARCA concluded that credit providers should not be
required to disclose commercially sensitive information as this may allow
individuals to 'artificially structure applications for credit to enhance their
chances of fraudulently obtaining credit' and could severely compromise the
intellectual property of the organisation.
The ALRC considered arguments about access to credit scores or other
rankings used by a credit provider, if an individual's application for credit
has been refused wholly or partly on credit reporting information. The ALRC
noted some practical difficulties, including the range of methodologies used by
credit providers, in detailed obligations to provide prescribed information to
individuals about the use of credit scoring. The ALRC concluded that in light
of these difficulties, it would not be appropriate to mandate the provision of
prescribed information about credit scoring. Rather, the provision of
information, including about credit scoring, on refusal of credit is an
appropriate subject for guidance from the OAIC.
The committee agrees that these matters should be the subject of
guidance from the OAIC.
Section 149 – Individual may
request the correction of credit information etc
An individual may request a credit provider to correct credit
information, CRA derived information or CP derived information. The credit
provider must take such steps (if any) as are reasonable in the circumstances
to correct the information within 30 days from the day on which the request has
been made or within a longer period if the individual has agreed in writing.
The committee has commented on the timeframe for correction of information as
well as evidence to substantiate a disputed listing in chapter 5.
Section 150 – Notice of correction
etc must be given
Pursuant to section 150, credit providers must, within a reasonable
period, give the individual, any interested parties or recipients a written
notice of the correction. If the credit provider does not correct the
information within a reasonable period, the individual must be provided with a
written notice as to why the correction has not been made and sets out the
complaints provisions. An exception is provided when it is impracticable for
the credit provider to give notice to recipients or if the credit provider is
required by or under an Australian law, or an order of a court or tribunal, not
to give notice.
Legal Aid Queensland (LAQ) commented that a time limit should apply to
disputes referred to external dispute resolution schemes. The LAQ commented
that in some instances consumers have to wait many months to have matters
addressed through the external dispute resolution scheme and as a result
incorrect listings are not removed for considerable periods of time. In such
cases, this results in significant harm to the consumer.
The LAQ went on to suggest that the legislation could incorporate a
mechanism for consumers to receive compensation for loss as a result of delays
in correcting information on their credit file. The LAQ stated that 'this would
ensure that credit providers are more careful before they list, the credit
reporting agency is more careful in identifying the right party when recording
default listing and the external dispute resolution scheme prioritises those
cases where time is of the essence'.
The committee has made comments in relation to the notification
requirements when a correction is made in chapter 5 of this report.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page