AIB Credit History - Defamation?

Bits_n_Bobs

Just wondering if AIB has defamed it's customers by passing on false information to the ICB relating to their credit history?

(full story here: http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/aib-missed-warnings-in-credit-history-blunder-3195909.html)

dahamsta

I'm sure there are plenty of legal issues, but defamation is a stretch! They hardly sent the deets to Hello magazine.

shaneybaby

dahamsta wrote: »

I'm sure there are plenty of legal issues, but defamation is a stretch! They hardly sent the deets to Hello magazine.

Any third party will do.

NoQuarter

Bits_n_Bobs wrote: »

Just wondering if AIB has defamed it's customers by passing on false information to the ICB relating to their credit history?

(full story here: http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/aib-missed-warnings-in-credit-history-blunder-3195909.html)

Definitely an argument for it there! Obviously nobody can say how any case would turn out at this stage but if defamation proceedings werent so expensive, I wouldnt be surprised if someone gave it a shot.

dahamsta wrote: »

I'm sure there are plenty of legal issues, but defamation is a stretch! They hardly sent the deets to Hello magazine.

Whats a large audience got to do with anything? They either published a false statement or they didnt, and it seems they did.

Bits_n_Bobs

I thought it could be defamation if you said something negative and false about someone else to just one other person? Given that this information is effectively shared by the ICB to it's members and used to make credit worthyness decisions, surely that's a defamation i.e. false and having a negative effect on someons reputation?

NoQuarter

Bits_n_Bobs wrote: »

I thought it could be defamation if you said something negative and false about someone else to just one other person? Given that this information is effectively shared by the ICB to it's members and used to make credit worthyness decisions, surely that's a defamation i.e. false and having a negative effect on someons reputation?

The tort of defamation consists of the publication, by any means, of a defamatory statement concerning a person to one or more than one person (other than the first-mentioned person), and “ defamation ” shall be construed accordingly.


“ defamatory statement” means a statement that tends to injure a person’s reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society, and “defamatory” shall be construed accordingly;

The tort of defamation is actionable without proof of special damage


Source: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/act/pub/0031/print.html

Bits_n_Bobs

Interesting. If the taxpayer did not own the idiot bank I'd be slobbering with joy at the prospect of someone suing them

ResearchWill

Ma be covered by qualified privilege http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/act/pub/0031/sec0018.html#sec18

Bits_n_Bobs

Surely that would just be legislation providing a bank with more protection than a citizen?? I refuse to believe such a thing would be possible

ResearchWill

Bits_n_Bobs wrote: »

Surely that would just be legislation providing a bank with more protection than a citizen?? I refuse to believe such a thing would be possible

A citizen can claim the defence as can anyone accused of Defamation. If you honestly believed the claim and only passed the information on to a person who is entitled to receive it and there is no malice the the defence can be raised. Example you think your neighbour is attacking her husband so you inform the police, but it turns out it was the TV you heard.

NoQuarter

Bits_n_Bobs wrote: »

Surely that would just be legislation providing a bank with more protection than a citizen?? I refuse to believe such a thing would be possible

Qualified privilege can be used as a defence by anyone, not just a bank so no, it's certainly not to give a bank more protection.

For what its worth I cant really see how the QP defence would work here myself.

Bits_n_Bobs

My misunderstanding. When I read the term "qualified priviledge" I thought it was something like the Dail has in terms of someone speaking in the Dail not being sued for defamation (I reserve the right to be entirely incorrect in that as well...).

NoQuarter

Bits_n_Bobs wrote: »

My misunderstanding. When I read the term "qualified priviledge" I thought it was something like the Dail has in terms of someone speaking in the Dail not being sued for defamation (I reserve the right to be entirely incorrect in that as well...).

Thats "Absolute Privilege". The previous section of the Defamation Act. s. 17.