No evidence found of improper disclosure to financial advisor

PIPEDA Case Summary #2006-339

(Principles 4.3)

An individual alleged that two bank officials disclosed his financial information to a third party that he had hired to help him obtain a loan for a franchise.  He claimed that, as a result of the alleged disclosures, he suffered financial damage due to losses as a franchise operator.

The Assistant Privacy Commissioner, however, could find no evidence that any improper disclosures took place, and concluded that the complaint was not well-founded.  The complainant brought the third party in question to assist him in presenting his business proposal to one bank official.  He later provided the third party’s name and telephone number to an official of the bank’s Ombudsman’s office so that she could investigate his complaint. 

The following is a detailed overview of the investigation and the Assistant Commissioner’s findings.

Summary of Investigation

The complainant had a long-standing dispute with the bank, stemming from a loan he and his father had obtained to run a franchise.  He claimed that he suffered financial damage because of losses incurred as a franchise operator, and blamed the bank for this damage.  He stated that, when he brought forward a complaint to the bank Ombudsman’s office, one of its officials provided details concerning his complaint to a third party.  He claimed that this disclosure led to a letter from the franchise threatening him and his father with the termination of his franchise.  The complainant further alleged that a bank loans officer, who approved his and his father’s loan, gave the complainant’s financial information to the third party in question, without his knowledge or consent.

The bank stated that the complainant and his father had been regular customers of the bank.  In July 2003, they met with an accounts manager to discuss a loan to purchase a franchise.

A meeting was arranged to discuss the business proposal.  During the meeting, the complainant and his father were accompanied by the third party in question, who is the president of a business that provides consultation services to assist individuals in buying franchise operations.  At this meeting, the complainant introduced the third party.  The third party, in turn, assisted the complainant and his father in presenting a detailed business plan and proposal to the accounts manager.  According to the bank, no other meetings took place between the third party and the accounts manager, and no further contact was made to him by her.

The Office spoke to the third party.  He stated that he has meetings with many individuals who wish to operate franchises, and that he typically acts as an intermediary between the customer and the bank. 

The third party confirmed that he was hired by the complainant to help him with a business proposal for a franchise.  He received financial information directly from the complainant, such as personal worth statements, and any other financial information required to complete the loan application.  The third party stated that he accompanied the complainant and his father to the meeting to assist in the presentation of the business proposal.  He stated that he has never spoken on the phone with the accounts manager, nor did she provide any financial information to him about the complainant. 

The Office also spoke to the accounts manager at the branch in question.  She confirmed that the meeting in question did take place and that it was arranged by the complainant.  The meeting included the complainant, his father and a man that she had never seen or heard of before, the third party in question.  She stated that the complainant introduced this individual as a franchise advisor.  The meeting concerned a business proposal and loan application.  She stated that she never had any other contact with the third party after that initial meeting. 

In late 2004, still dissatisfied with the bank’s response to his various concerns, the complainant lodged a complaint with the bank’s Ombudsman’s office.  He met with an official of the Ombudsman’s office.  During this conversation, the complainant mentioned the third party’s name as a contact person that the official should speak to concerning his complaint.  The complainant provided the official with the third party’s phone number.  A short time later, the official telephoned the third party and left a message asking him to call her back.  She indicated in her message who she was, what her position was, and that she was calling him at the complainant’s behest.  The third party never returned her call. 

The third party confirmed that the bank’s Ombudsman official did leave a message for him and that he did not return her call.  He has never spoken to her.

We also spoke to the Ombudsman official, who stated that as an employee of the Ombudsman, it is her role to investigate complaints brought forward by individuals.  The third party was contacted solely as a result of the complainant’s request that she contact him.

Findings

Issued June 27, 2006

Application: Principle 4.3 states that the knowledge and consent of the individual are required for the collection, use, or disclosure of personal information, except where inappropriate.

In making her determinations, the Assistant Commissioner deliberated as follows:

• Although the complainant alleged that his personal information, namely, his financial information, was disclosed to the third party without his knowledge or consent, our investigation established that it was the complainant who hired the third party to assist him in his attempt to obtain a loan for a franchise.  The complainant introduced the third party and allowed him to be present during a meeting with a loans officer.  There was no evidence that any personal information was disclosed to him by the officer without his knowledge or consent.  Indeed, the third party informed the Office that it was the complainant who had provided him with his financial information.
• As for the alleged improper disclosure of personal information by a bank Ombudsman official, again, it was at the complainant’s request and his instigation of a complaint that an official of the Ombudsman’s office contacted the third party.  The complainant provided the official with the name and telephone number of the third party to ensure that a discussion would take place. 
• In sum, the Assistant Commissioner was satisfied that no improper disclosure took place and that the bank did not contravene Principle 4.3.

The Assistant Commissioner concluded that the complaint was not well-founded.