Email this page

Send this page to a friend.

This page is printer friendly.

Timeframe for answering requests

When an agency receives a request for access or correction, it has to do various things. It has to:

  • decide whether it agrees to the request;
  • if so, decide how it will provide access or correction;
  • if it is a private sector agency, decide whether it will charge for making the information available;
  • tell the requester what it has decided.

The agency has to make these decisions and let the requester know as soon as it can. The longest the agency can usually take is 20 working days from the date it receives the request.

Occasionally, the agency may need an extension to the time frame.

Since the time frame is so strict, it is important for agencies to have a procedure in place for dealing with Privacy Act requests. For instance, it is important that the request is given straight away to someone who can deal with it (Case Note 71808)

What is meant by "as soon as reasonably practicable"?
The time limit of 20 working days is a maximum, and term "as soon as reasonable practicable" means exactly what it says.

What is a "working day"?
Section 2 of the Privacy Act defines a "working day" as any day of the week other than Saturday, Sunday, Good Friday, Easter Monday, Anzac Day, Labour Day, the Queen's birthday, Waitangi Day, and any day from 25 December to 15 January inclusive.

Can the agency ask for further time in which to make a decision on a request?
Yes. Section 41 of the Act allows an agency to extend the time limit set out in section 40 if the request made is for a large amount of information or requires an extensive search and if meeting the time limit would unreasonably interfere with the agency's operations. The agency must, however, give the requester notice of the extension within the usual  time limit (that is, as soon as it can and no later than 20 working days after receiving the request). 

This notice must spell out how long the extension will be for and why it is necessary, and must advise the requester or his or her right to complain to the Privacy Commissioner.

Does the agency have to give me a copy of my information, or make the requested corrections, within this time limit?
No. The agency must only tell the requester whether it intends to release the information or make the corrections that the requester wants (and if not, why not).

If an agency agrees to release or correct the information but then fails to do so within a reasonable time, you can make a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner.

What if the agency fails to respond to my request within 20 working days?
Complain to the agency first, for instance by contacting the agency's privacy officer. See if the agency can sort it out for you.

If you have no success there, you can ask the Privacy Commissioner to investigate what happened.  If an agency doesn't have a proper reason for refusing a request, then a failure to comply with the timeframe is automatically an "interference with privacy".

What if the request is urgent?
A requester can ask for the agency to treat the access or correction request as urgent. The requester has to give reasons why the agency should treat it urgently (section 37).

If there are good reasons for a request to be treated urgently and the requester has made them clear, then this may affect how long the agency has to decide whether to agree to the request, and to provide access to the information or correct it. The agency has to decide "as soon as reasonably practicable" what to do and, once it has agreed to the request, needs to act without "undue delay".  Urgency can affect either what said to be a "reasonably practicable" timeframe, or when a delay might be said to be "undue".

References

Privacy Act 1993
Section 40
Decisions on requests

Section 41
Extension of time limits

Section 37
Urgency
If an individual making an information privacy request asks that his or her request be treated as urgent, that individual shall give his or her reasons why the request should be treated as urgent.

Compare: 1982 No 156 s 12(3); 1987 No 174 s 10(3)

Case Notes:
Case Note Annual Report 1999/2000
Case Note Annual Report 2000/2001
Case Note 88137