Contents

1. Summary
   1. Facts
   2. Holding
2. Comment
3. Further resources
4. The Decision

Summary

The ODPC dismissed a claim by directors of a company (the ‘Complainant'). The directors claimed that account opening forms and signing mandates which were signed by them to facilitate company transactions, were not undertaken by the bank (the ‘Respondent’). The ODPC noted that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain a claim filed by a company, and further, that the right of access was not infringed upon by the bank.

Facts

On Complainant opened a bank account with the Respondent and in so doing also executed account opening forms and signing mandates as required. The Complainant also enabled mobile and online banking options. However, these banking options were allegedly not activated by the Respondent and the mandates authorising 2 directors to approve transactions jointly was also never implemented.

The Respondent availed the executed account forms utilised during account opening as requested by the Complainant. They also denied that the accounts were not opened and averred that contrary to that assertion, some transactions were processed through the platforms by the Complainant in compliance with the executed mandates.

The Respondent therefore indicated that the mandates were implemented as requested, and also denied altering the forms. The Respondent also challenged the jurisdiction of the ODPC in the matter.

Holding

The DPA held that:

• The DPA’s powers emanate from the DPA,19.
• The Complainant is a limited liability company and not an identifiable natural person as defined by section 2 of the DPA,19. This ousted the jurisdiction of the office.
• In providing access to the account opening forms and signing mandates executed by the directors of the Complainant as requested, the Respondent satisfied the requirements under rights of access by data subjects.

The claim was in the circumstances dismissed.

Comment

A full text of the ruling is provided below.