BNZ comfirming details to a third party in internet banking

I was logged into my internet banking and I clicked to add a new account

I then started the process of adding a new account.

I got to the screen where it advised me that BNZ needs to “confirm your details with a third party”

From the wording of your notice I deduce that the entity you would be asking requires that you provide them with my full legal name and date of birth.

May I ask, who is the third party you would be passing my details to and confirming with?

There was nowhere on the page I could click to know who the bank was going to confirm my details with.


I have just been speaking with BNZ and they confirmed that my details might be passed to a credit reporting agency. I asked if that would result in negative entries against me being recorded with such an entity. She was not able to confirm that or who the reporting agency would be. She did advise that I would have to either go into the branch or phone the technical line and provided the 0800 269-424 phone number to find out.

Oh dear.

I made a Privacy Act request to Veda on Monday and I have already received 2 responses trying to push me to make an application at Additionally, they offered a bunch of waffle about the Privacy Commissioner etc, which while obviously intended to be impressive (or even intimidating) included little tangible to the matter at hand, which was a simple Privacy Act request.

Wow, isn’t this a boon for large information gathering companies if they can get away with it? They get to set the parameters of the request (and therefore subsequent response) and collect further information in the process.

I already have a precedence in a complaint I made in 2013 about Tenancy Information NZ. This complaint was upheld and the decision confirmed a request, even if made verbally was valid.

s.30 of the Privacy Act [1] is very clear they can not refuse except for allowed reasons covered in s.27-29.


But you had to go all the way to the Tribunal to get the decision.
When I had a meeting with the Legal Complaints Review Officer I asked him directly for the Solicitor to actually hand me information they had about me. He just ignored the question completely. Thats why I made a complaint to them because the Solicitor just ignored my request for information under the Privacy Act.

I think the issue is that people are under the impression that just because certain laws exist means companies automatically comply with them. They don’t. You have to actually take some other action to get the information. That is out of reach for a lot of people. Its costly and time consuming.
When I asked Veda to provide the historical data that they had linked to my credit report which affected the ageing and ultimately the score, they still have not done so. They just explain it away. And I still don’t have the information.
Mostly my requests for information are just ignored completely. Certainly the privacy act allows easy outs for companies not to have to provide the information.

Both Veda and Centrix will provide, via the debt collection agents, unsigned copies of the Banks standard terms and conditions as proof that authority has been given by me for others to make enquiries against me.

I think people don’t realise just what the legal implications are when they open a bank account or apply for credit, or that contract laws apply when they engage a company for business. Footprints are left which can stay with someone permanently.

A credit card company I know allows you to apply online for a credit card. They actually told me that the application goes via Veda first before it reaches the company. I don’t know if BNZ have the same policy but certainly to continue with the application would be deemed confirmation that I agreed to BNZ making enquiries with a third party.

There is a lot of information stressing the importance of having sound financial knowledge. But not so much with regards to having sound legal knowledge.  Certainly my own situation has come about due as well to my lack of legal knowledge.

Understanding basic laws and your rights I think are fundamentally critical to ensuring you don’t end up at the mercy of others. If people would speak out more about our rights then companies would have to toe-the-line.

Hi @ford as you may be aware, recent legislation changes mean we must verify the identity of our customers when they join us or take out additional products with us. We use 3rd party providers Dun & Bradstreet and LINZ to match your personal information as part of our online flow to verify a persons identity. 

Rest assured that we are not conducting credit checks, we are just using these 3rd party providers to allow us to verify your identity electronically so that you don’t have to bring your ID and other verification documents into a store.


1 Like

“But you had to go all the way to the Tribunal to get the decision.”

No, I didn’t. It was a standard Privacy Commissioner investigation.

Banks take turns at sucking. It is my recent observation it seems to be BNZ’s turn to take one for the team. I recently expressed interest in applying for a business credit card with a low limit. I didn’t need the credit. The guy sent me a swag of paperwork to fill in. Sheesh, it was only about a year ago when I was offered one over the phone. 

Banks need customers and they need to make loans. On that account I guess I’m just not indebted enough to be of any value. lol.

 - I’ll hold you to that.

I’m so indebted that I can’t open an ordinary bank account with another bank.
On the matter of third parties, just had confirmation from Centrix who are a credit reporter, that the burden of proof is on the debtor to prove that debt is invalid. They are relisting debt against me by a debt collector on behalf of a bank. The only required pieces of “proof” that Centrix forwarded to me were 1. A copy of the banks standard terms and conditions that are not signed by anyone and that which are terms for a completely different facility. 2. A profile screenshot from the bank showing details of an old credit card that existed in 2004 and is long since closed. That’s it. No amounts, date of default, no nothing. The screen shot only showed the credit limit on the card when it was opened at the time.

I will take my matter to the Privacy Commissioner and ask them to confirm the validity of the debt based on the information that Centrix forwarded to me.

“I will take my matter to the Privacy Commissioner and ask them to confirm the validity of the debt based on the information that Centrix forwarded to me.”

If you want to get good results from the Privacy Commissioner, I suggest sticking with what is within their realm of ability to investigate.

I’ll read up on a few of the online privacy cases for ways to present my case.
At this stage, All I’m asking the commissioner for is that the debt be listed correctly, confirmation that payments were received and a list of the transactions that have occured on the account. I am hoping that is in their ability to investigate.
Given my luck so far, I’m not holding out much hope for anything.

Just reading a privacy case now and the commissioner states that the Act does not oblige agencies to correct information and that agencies can use their discretion to correct information. But there are some times whereby an agent must correct information such as when it relates to a date of birth or other such significant fact. The Commissioner can determine if the grounds for refusing a change were reasonable or not.

“All I’m asking the commissioner for is that the debt be listed correctly, confirmation that payments were received and a list of the transactions that have occured on the account.”

They won’t do this because it would be outside their purview. I suggest you read the Privacy Act itself and understand what’s it’s about and what it isn’t.

In a nutshell the Privacy Act is primarily governing your  access  to information held about you. While it contains provisions around “correction” of information this is basically procedural provisions, not about the validity (or otherwise) of the information itself. It also covers declarations they have to make to you about gathering of personal information (Good luck refusing if it’s a organisation you making an application for something to!).

By my reading of the Act, the best you can achieve under it’s provisions (If the agency doesn’t want to budge) in terms of  “correction” is a note that you disagree with the information. See Principle 7. You could try under Principle 8 (Accuracy of personal information etc to be checked before use) but I suspect you will be pushing the proverbial up the hill on that one if you can’t afford legal action.

When it comes to CRA’s (Credit Reporting Agencies), a lawyer’s letter threatening legal action is more likely to achieve something. Unfortunately, if it’s a bank (who is also a large customer of theirs), they may well call your lawyer’s bluff so the you will have to take the matter to court.

Given the wider picture you have covered in other threads I’m not entirely clear on what you are trying to achieve. Your credit rating is obviously shot anyway. My suggestion all along that it could well be in your best interests to roll over, do some time in the commercial sin bin while living within your means is still one you should probably consider. Your creditors obviously know they are not going to get blood out of a stone so they have likely already written it off (I’d like to think they are taking it as a salutary lesson but being they are banks I won’t hold my breath) so it’s downhill from here.

Writing off a debt off doesn’t mean it’s no longer owed - it simply means the value of the debt to the creditor is zero and _anything _they can get back on it from that point on, they will take. I think you know what I mean. Sieze control of the situation before it degenerates further.

Certainly I have considered having a lawyer write to them but I’d only be using their same tactics that they are using on me.  A threatening letter is just another form of violence.
As it stands currently there’s nothing stopping the banks from using the same collection processes on some other unsuspecting person. They’ve not lost nothing  in this, if anything they have gained. The lady that attended the tribunal has since been promoted.
There is nothing to control or seize, there never was. I have no objection to any creditor taking the matter to court. The lawyer on behalf of the bank did actually issue a statement of claim, but they never served it, so that’s also going nowhere. I’ve written twice to the solicitor but they have not responded.  Creditors have been given money and a repayment plan and I offered full settlement, I can’t do any more than that.
I’ve lost three years of my life to the matter, not to mention substantial money and time. Certainly to declare an insolvency at this point would make matters a hundred times worse.
The collection industry needs to be regulated and I’d like a law to prevent collective corporate bullying, and also the removal of credit scoring. And there’s the matter of the legal loophole that needs to be closed.
I did get confirmation from one of the debt collectors that they still collect debt even when it’s a decade old. The courts confirmed that with a tribunal order once the statute of limitations is reached the creditor just fills in a form and pays a filing fee to continue the collection.
I’ll read the privacy act and fill in the application and see what transpires and in the meantime try and move forward the best I can.
What am I ultimately trying to achieve – a fair regulated debt collection system and policies that NZ can be proud of, not ashamed of.

I seriously think I am flogging a dead horse here, but yet again, here is the deal:

You foolishly borrowed the money and they equally foolishly lent it to you - so you both lose. There is nothing complex here. There is no higher cause here either. They have a legal right to pursue you for the debt and you have a legal right to take any of the options previously suggested. The legal system will back them in pursuing their legal rights, and should you choose to exercise any of the previously mentioned options, the system will allow you to do this even if it means they end up **** out of luck. Morals doesn’t come in to it.

They will have to write it off (it sounds like they have already done this) because - based on what you have said in this forum and privately - they don’t have a **** show of getting it from you. Equally, you will find out (as you probably have already) life isn’t always fair and sometimes - often even - you need to think ahead and make sensible decisions.

It is possible to take the hit and recover as people in the other forum explained. Thinking of my own personal experience, my credit check is now clear again and I can access the full range of banking services (abeit more wisely) and that includes both this bank and the other one you mentioned who declinined you.

The upshot is the longer you keep pissing in the wind the longer it’s going to be until the matter is done and dusted.

The Property Law Act has a section that allows a debtor to make an order to the courts to ask for a determination to be made as to the legality of the claim against them.

Just had a call today from the debt collector. Certainly the bank has not written anything off and the phone call confirmed that they are continuing to act and collect for the bank and that they have spoken to the bank today also. I didn’t confirm any of my personal details so we couldn’t continue the conversation.

I noticed a few days ago I still have access to my internet banking and I have downloaded the statements. Earlier on, I did ask to bank to separate out the purchases from the interest as a starting point for negotiations but they chose not to respond. They have also seen the hardship letter from the IRD.  I have forwarded a networth statement and budget with a personal drawings undertaking (as was advised by an insolvency accountant) to both banks but they were ignored. I even included the monthly payment arrangement I had proposed. I don’t know why the banks are continuing to collect. My entire networth is completely negative. I live in a two bedroom rented flat in Linwood. Apart from the few dollars in Kiwisaver that’s all my assets.

No, life is indeed not fair. And yes, morals don’t come into it. But I though the law did at least.
Its sad to think we truly live in a society that is without moral judgement. That’s too crushing to think about.

I say, why can’t we have a better society? Don’t we all deserve that? Sure human nature is unpredictable and some people will always do wrong, but we could have better systems that actually worked for everyone, that would be a good start.

I did start making payments to the bank but they would not enter into any formal arrangement. Thats something I can’t control.

I stopped the payments when I became aware that money had appeared to have gone missing and the alleged debt was not at the balance it should have been. I did alert the bank and they did confirm that other transactions have occured against the account.

The bank are within their rights to make an order to the courts for a financial assessment hearing. I’ve advised them I would participate in that.

I certainly have considered my options and I appreciate all opinions that have been suggested on this board.

I believe what I am doing is in the best interests of everybody.

A formal insolvency procedure is also public. I don’t have an issue with people knowing about my position but there may well be other parties who are not immediately part of the proceedings, but who may be effected negatively from such an action.

If there were no life long negative consequences to an insolvency procedure and that such action didn’t also cause harm to others,  I would file for the NAP, in a heartbeat.

I appreciate that your circumstances are different than mine, and thank you for your comments.
You are lucky you have the skill to have made a good comeback from your own situation.

As the matter of the original post has been explained, I’m sure BNZ would like to close this post now.

Your perception of matters is worryingly far detached from mine and my Mother’s, who as I have told you, had a stint in the legal side of company liquidation (and related stuff) during her career as a lawyer.

When I said the bank(s) had _probably _written it off, this was just conjecture on my part to demonstrate a point. In terms of your circumstances it’s quite immaterial either way because it doesn’t affect whether or not debt collectors will call you. Until/If they decide to wipe the debt totally from their books it’s only an accounting thing to “write it off”. I’m sure you understand the accounting principle involved. Even when/if they do this, it still doesn’t mean the debt has gone away - quite the opposite - it invariably means someone else can then have a crack at extracting some financial gain from your situation. 

Another point which seems to be unfortunately lost on you is your creditors do  not  have to play your game nor do they have to engage with you beyond the requirements of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003. Can you state _legally speaking _where they have fallen short? Even if they have (and granted it does happen), how is this going to help your case?

Personally, I think you are wasting time on a bunch of red herrings and dead ends. Life isn’t always fair and the quicker you find a way to extract yourself from this sticky situation the better things will be.

“I appreciate that your circumstances are different than mine, and thank you for your comments. You are lucky you have the skill to have made a good comeback from your own situation.”

My different circumstances are my indebtedness was a bit less then yours and I saw the writing on the wall and settled the matter. Beyond that there is no great “skill” as you put it. It still took me years to shake off the consequences and I expect it will be the same for you. I have given you the benefit of my own experience and even posted it publicly for others. I believe I have been fair and balanced to both yourself and the bank(s) in my analysis of your situation.

As I have said all along - it does not last forever but neither is there any great esoteric option. At no time have I ever judged you as a person on your predicament. It is what it is. Deal with it and move on really is the best option.

Sections 37,41,44A,45,46,49,54,subpart 8

Congratulations you win.

I’m filing for the NAP


“Congratulations you win.”

I have no idea what you are on about. I don’t win or lose as it’s NMP (Not my problem).