| Authority: | ODPC - Kenya |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction: | Kenya |
| Relevant law: | Section 25, 26, 28, 30, 32, 41 of the Data Protection Act, 2019; Article 31 of the Constitution of Kenya |
| Type: | Complaint |
| Outcome: | Violation |
| Started: | 2 October 2023 |
| Decided: | 15 December 2023 |
| Published: | Yes |
| Fine: | N/A |
| Parties: | Joy Matheka vs. Amref Staff Savings & Credit Society Ltd & Anor |
| Case No.: | 1872 of 2023 |
| Appeal: | N/A |
| Original Source: | ODPC |
| Original contributor: | MZIZI Africa |
AMREF Staff Savings and Credit Society Limited debt collection agency was held to have violated the Complainants personal data when they made continuous calls to her requesting for a third party whom she never guaranteed and was unaware of the loan until she began getting the calls.
The Complainant alleged that the AMREF Staff Savings and Credit Society Limited, (the “1st Respondent”) who offer credit facilities to its members, approached her regarding a loan from a third party that she had never guaranteed, and she was unaware of the loan until she was contacted.
The Complainant claimed to have requested the 1st Respondent not to contact her, but they persisted, leading her to file a complaint with the Office of the Data Protection Commission.
The 1st Respondent denied the allegations and stated that they always outsource their debt collection activities and only provide relevant information (limited to the name of the borrower and guarantors) when instructing any entity on their debt collection panel. The Complainant was not part of the instructions and the 2nd Defendant therefore acted outside the scope of the instructions issued to them under the prevailing service agreement in contacting the Complainant.
It is on this basis that the ODPC enjoined Gleannmore Limited (the “2nd Respondent”), a debt collection agency, to the matter.
The 2nd Respondent admitted that their officers contacted the Complainant in pursuit of the borrower but failed to demonstrate where they obtained her phone number from.
The 2nd Respondent stated that the phone calls were made to the Complainant as inquiries into the whereabouts of the debtor, and they claimed that the Complainant was initially receptive to the first call and offered to provide information about the debtor's whereabouts. The 2nd Respondent indicated that they communicated to their officers to cease making further communication with the Complainant when notified of her complaint.
The 1st Respondent provided evidence that the Complainant was not a guarantor of the loan and had not submitted her details to them.
The 1st Respondent also outlined the confidentiality requirements and submitted copies of the loan application and agreement form for the loan facility to support their position.
The ODPC held that: