Mis-trace

Background
A legal firm were helping a client with debt recovery proceedings regarding outstanding school fees. The firm had been in correspondence with the debtors but engaged a third-party tracing agent to assist with the debt recovery. The third party tracing agent advised that one of the debtors had a home address in another jurisdiction. As a result, correspondence pursuing the debt, including detailed private and confidential information relating to the family and children, was sent to that address. It transpired that the recipient in the other jurisdiction, despite being linked to the family, was not involved and the firm became aware of the error when the recipient contacted them by telephone to let them know. 

Learning points

• The consequences of this case show that it is imperative that organisations take proactive and robust steps to ensure appropriate integrity and confidentiality of personal data. In addition, and especially when communicating sensitive information, steps must be taken to ensure the correct person is corresponded with using up to date and accurate contact information.
• The tracing agent had identified the wrong person i.e. a “mis-trace” but should have processes in place to ensure additional verification, particularly when disclosing very private information. The instructing firm should have taken steps to check with the agent as to what tracing activity took place to confirm they were pursuing the correct person for the debt.