In one paragraph. Misleading communication is one of the grounds Default Gone may raise to dispute a default listing on an Australian credit file. It commonly applies where: creditor or collector represented that listing would not occur while negotiations continued. 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 misleading communication 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 misleading communication 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.
- Creditor or collector represented that listing would not occur while negotiations continued
- Listing was filed despite that representation
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:
- All communications between the consumer and the creditor in the relevant period
- Internal collection-call notes
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:
- Internal notes that contradict the representation made to the consumer
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.
- Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Schedule 2, s.18 — misleading or deceptive conduct
- Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Schedule 2, s.29 — false or misleading representations
- ASIC Act 2001 (Cth) s.12DA — misleading or deceptive conduct in financial services
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.
Collector threatened a listing in a recorded call before listing was made
We use the recorded representation as evidence of a pre-listing communication that may have substituted for, or contradicted, a compliant section 21D notice.
Consumer-side signals that this ground may be open in this fact pattern:
- Was the call recorded?
- Did the collector say a listing would be made if you did not pay immediately?
- How long after the call was the listing made?
Consumer was disputing a charge when the listing was filed
We argue that a listing made while an internal dispute is unresolved is not consistent with the accuracy and completeness obligation.
Consumer-side signals that this ground may be open in this fact pattern:
- Were you in active dispute with the creditor about the amount?
- Did you file a complaint with the creditor’s internal dispute team?
- Did the creditor acknowledge the dispute in writing?
Collector listed a default after a single payment-arrangement breach
We argue that a payment-plan breach does not relieve the collector of the section 21D notice obligation, and that the original assignment notice obligation has not been substantiated.
Consumer-side signals that this ground may be open in this fact pattern:
- Were you in a payment plan with the collector?
- Did you miss one payment or several?
- Was a section 21D notice sent before the listing?
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’s recollection is that, in the period before this listing was made, your organisation represented to them — in writing or in a recorded call — that no listing would occur while a payment arrangement was being negotiated. Where such a representation has been made and the listing is then made before negotiations are resolved, that conduct may engage section 18 of Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (and section 12DA of the ASIC Act 2001 (Cth) where the conduct relates to financial services). We respectfully ask, within 30 days, for all communications between the consumer and your organisation in the relevant period, including call recordings or internal collection notes. If the representation can be substantiated, we ask that the listing be corrected or removed. The consumer is willing to provide their copy of any text messages, emails or notes of calls in the relevant period. We are conscious that the picture may be more nuanced than the consumer’s recollection alone suggests, and we are willing to consider any contemporaneous record your organisation provides. Where, however, a representation about the listing not occurring during negotiations was made and the listing then proceeded, the conduct may engage section 18 of Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). 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 misleading communication 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 misleading communication 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