Dear Privacy Commissioner,

I assume if the statute "Private investigators and security guards act" as quoted on your website as being information obtained in breach of the law. 6 months later the statute of that act would have expired. I found out 18 months after the fact the investigator did not hold a license.

Would this this then make the information obtained legally if the investigator had forgot to obtain a license as required by law? as the criminal statute had expired.

As the statute would have expired how would the newer act cover the information collected by someone acting under the previous act as it was not in force at the time. how would this have any relevance as the PSPLA act came into force over a year later 1st April 2011.

I'm sure you are aware I took the original case the HRRT and won. Could you explain exactly why when the HRRT called it a serious and ongoing brach by the biggest NZ owned insurance company. Why exactly this was not passed to the director of human rights as the nature of the breach was serious as defined by the HRRT, I believe I even made about a third of a power point from privacy week.

Yours faithfully,

James Lochead

Dear Privacy Commissioner,

As the top part is now with the ombudsman regarding the PISG act collection of information. I withdraw this part of the request.

What I still want to know is why when case was summed up as a serious and ongoing breach. It made it to a good portion of privacy week.

3 ignored requests..
2 refusals without proper basis in law.

Why was this case never passed to the director of human rights?

Quite how bad dose a case have to be to be passed to the director of human rights?

Yours faithfully,

James Lochead

Dear Enquiries,

Lochead-Macmillan vs AMI insurance case the privacy commissioners have a record of this case and have used it several times.

1)My question was why was a case like this a serious and sustained breach of the privacy act not passed on to the Director of human rights?

2)What is the cretiera used to assess if the director of human rights should be given the file?

3)Also when companies go over 20 working days do you not issue as a matter of course. a verdict they have breached the statutory time limit?

Yours sincerely,

James Lochead