In one paragraph. Identity is one of the grounds Default Gone may raise to dispute a default listing on an Australian credit file. It commonly applies where: the consumer denies opening the account. If this is your situation, lodge your default with Default Gone — we review every listing on its facts and we do not give probability scores.
What this ground tests
This is a identity ground under the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) and the Credit Reporting Privacy Code framework. It applies where a default listing on an Australian credit file may not satisfy the procedural or substantive requirements that Australian credit-reporting law places on credit providers and credit reporting bodies. Where the facts of the listing meet the conditions described below, Default Gone may be able to dispute the listing on the consumer’s behalf and seek correction or removal. We do not promise removal — outcomes depend on the specific facts of each matter and on the credit provider’s response within the statutory window.
Default Gone is a consumer-advocacy credit dispute service. We are not a law firm and we do not give legal advice. The information on this page is general in nature, prepared from public Commonwealth and State legislation, and is intended to help Australian consumers understand whether a identity ground may apply to a default listing on their credit file.
Fact patterns where this ground may apply
The following fact patterns commonly indicate that this ground is open for review. Each pattern is a signal — the ground only crystallises once the credit provider has been asked, in writing, to substantiate the listing and either cannot or does not respond within the 30-day statutory window.
- The consumer denies opening the account
- A police report has been filed (or can be filed)
- The application data does not match the consumer’s known details
What we ask the credit provider to produce
When Default Gone formally raises this ground on a consumer’s behalf, we put the credit provider on notice and request the documents that would substantiate the listing. The credit provider has thirty days under the Credit Reporting Privacy Code 2014 to investigate and respond. The records we typically request include:
- The original credit application
- Identity verification records relied upon at onboarding
- Device/IP logs from the application
What credit providers commonly cannot produce. In our experience, credit providers and assignees frequently struggle to produce the following — particularly where the underlying account has been on-sold, the systems-of-record have been migrated, or the original listing was generated from a bulk template:
- Robust ID-verification audit when the account is older or onboarded online
Where the credit provider cannot substantiate the listing on the documents within the statutory thirty-day window, we ask that the listing be corrected or removed and that the credit reporting body be notified, having regard to sections 20S and 21V of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) and Paragraph 20 of the Privacy (Credit Reporting) Code 2024.
The statutory framework
This ground is grounded in the following Commonwealth and State legislation. Citations are provided so the consumer (and any adviser the consumer chooses to consult) can verify each provision in its primary source. We do not give legal advice — we cite the law as a frame for the dispute we prepare.
- Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) Part IIIA, s.20S — accuracy obligation
- Privacy (Credit Reporting) Code 2024 — Paragraph 23 (suspected fraud)
- Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) s.21V — correction by credit provider
Example fact patterns from real consumer matters
The following fact patterns are anonymised examples of consumer situations where this ground has been raised. Each is a single matter, not a prediction of what will happen in any particular case. Whether a similar outcome could be achieved in your circumstances depends on the specific facts of your matter and the credit provider’s response.
Personal loan listed that the consumer never applied for
We treat the listing as the product of fraud and ask the credit provider to suspend further use of the information while it is investigated, in line with the Code’s suspected-fraud obligations.
Consumer-side signals that this ground may be open in this fact pattern:
- Have you ever held an account with this lender?
- Have you reported identity theft to police?
- Have you noticed any other unfamiliar entries on your file?
Card-not-present transaction, bank already chargedback the merchant
We cite the bank’s own fraud determination as third-party evidence that the underlying credit was not extended to the consumer.
Consumer-side signals that this ground may be open in this fact pattern:
- Did your bank confirm the underlying transaction was fraudulent?
- Do you have a chargeback reference?
- Was the merchant a recurring-billing service?
Multiple unfamiliar listings appearing on the consumer’s file
We split the file question from the per-listing question and ask the bureau to evidence the matching key for each disputed entry.
Consumer-side signals that this ground may be open in this fact pattern:
- Do you recognise the creditors named?
- Do the addresses on the file match where you have lived?
- Are there any names on the file that are not yours?
The dispute paragraph we prepare
If Default Gone takes on this matter and this ground applies on the facts, the following paragraph (or a paragraph closely modelled on it) forms part of the formal dispute we serve on the credit provider and the credit reporting body. It is reproduced here so the consumer can see exactly what is being asked and on what basis. The paragraph is neutral in tone, factual, and frames the request within the relevant statutory framework.
The consumer asserts that this account was not opened by them and that they were not a party to the underlying credit relationship. Where a credit provider receives information that an entry on a consumer’s file may be the product of fraud, the credit provider has obligations under section 21V of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) and Paragraph 23 of the Privacy (Credit Reporting) Code 2024 to investigate, suspend further use or disclosure of the information while it is investigated, and correct the file if fraud is established. We respectfully ask, within 30 days, for a copy of the original credit application, the identity verification records relied upon at onboarding, and any device or IP logs associated with the application. We ask that the listing be suspended pending investigation and corrected or removed if the application cannot be tied to the consumer. The Code specifically contemplates suspension of further use or disclosure of credit information while a suspected-fraud investigation is on foot, and we ask that suspension be put in place pending your organisation’s investigation. The consumer holds the police-report reference and is willing to provide a statutory declaration on request. Where the application cannot be tied to the consumer on the documents, the listing should be removed and the credit reporting body notified. We respectfully ask for your written response within 45 days.
What happens after the ground is raised
Once Default Gone has formally raised this ground on the consumer’s behalf, the credit provider has thirty days under the Credit Reporting Privacy Code 2014 to investigate and respond. There are three common outcomes:
- The listing is corrected or removed. Where the credit provider concludes (after our request) that the listing cannot be substantiated on the documents, the credit information is corrected at source and the credit reporting body is notified. The consumer’s credit file is updated.
- The credit provider responds substantively but maintains the listing. Where the credit provider produces material that responds to our specific requests, we review the response on its facts. If the response does not, in our view, address the substantive question, we may escalate to the credit reporting body’s correction process and, where appropriate, external review.
- The credit provider does not respond within thirty days. A failure to respond within the statutory window is itself a procedural defect. We escalate to the credit reporting body for correction, and the consumer may also pursue external review pathways available to Australian consumers — at no additional charge from us.
Why identity grounds matter in Australian credit reporting
The Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) Part IIIA and the Privacy (Credit Reporting) Code 2024 are deliberately structured so that a credit listing is only lawful where every procedural step has been satisfied. The legislative design reflects a public-policy judgement that a default listing is a serious mark — visible to every credit provider, capable of materially shaping access to home loans, vehicle finance, refinance, rental tenancies, and several insurance products for the five-year retention period set by the Code. Where any procedural step has not been satisfied, the consumer’s recourse is to ask the credit provider to substantiate the listing on the documents — and, where the provider cannot, to seek correction or removal. That is the recourse Default Gone operationalises on consumers’ behalf. We do not adjudicate the matter; we put the credit provider on notice in writing, on the consumer’s behalf, and we track the response across the thirty-day statutory window.
It is worth noting that identity grounds, like every other ground in our catalogue, are not adversarial in the way litigation is. The dispute we prepare is a written request that the credit provider revisit the listing on its facts, having regard to the specific provisions of Part IIIA, the Credit Reporting Privacy Code, and (where relevant) the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth). In our experience, credit providers respond materially to a well-framed written request — even where the consumer alone has previously been told the listing is correct. The reasons for that are partly practical (a framed dispute is easier for an investigations team to action than a general complaint), and partly procedural (the thirty-day clock starts running on the date of formal lodgement, and a non-response is itself a defect).
For consumers reading this page who are unsure whether the ground applies on their facts, our standard recommendation is to start with the free Credit-Report Decoder at /decoder/ — paste the text of your Equifax, Experian, or illion report, and the decoder will surface the Privacy Act 1988 tests that apply to each listing on your file in plain English. The decoder is free, requires no sign-up, and stores nothing.
What Default Gone does — and does not — promise
We do not promise that this ground (or any ground) will succeed in any particular matter. The fee Default Gone charges is for the work of investigating the facts, preparing the dispute, formally serving it, tracking the credit provider’s response across the thirty-day statutory window, and escalating where required. The fee is not contingent on a particular result. We are a consumer-advocacy credit dispute service — we are not a law firm, we do not give legal advice, and we do not appear in any court or tribunal on the consumer’s behalf.
Default Gone charges a flat A$399 per consumer per default listing. There are no stage fees and no success fees. Each consumer’s credit file is their own — joint defaults require a separate engagement for each consumer. A 14-day cooling-off period applies after the consumer signs the service agreement.
If the fact patterns above sound like your situation, lodge your default with Default Gone. Our 24/7 AI advisor will walk you through the grounds that may apply to your specific listing, in plain English, before you engage us. Lodge your default now →
Let’s challenge it properly.
$399 flat per consumer per default. We prepare your dispute under the Privacy Act 1988 framework, review the detail, and file it to the credit reporting body and the credit provider. We do not guarantee removal — outcomes depend on the facts of each case — but we will do every bit of work that fits.
Lodge your default · Call (02) 5502 7025 · See pricing · How it works