Violation of Privacy: Misleading “Profile”and Selling Unauthorised Publication: Private residential repairs exploited for lead generation, Serious business misconduct
This company published and selling my personal information including full name and an NCAT case on its website and indexed it on Google. The matter relates to an interim application for urgent bathroom repairs in a private residence. NCAT has not published this in their official decisions database, yet this site has made it searchable, created blog about me without consent. Public court lists allow transparency of proceedings. They do not automatically grant third parties the right to create monetised, search-optimised “profile” pages of private individuals based on withdrawn matters. That distinction is important. This matter has been reported to the OAIC and the ACCC for assessment.
When I requested removal, Mark J Smith, the business owner declined, claiming a leaky bathroom repair is a "newsworthy public record." He further stated an intention to publish a "detailed blog post" about my past civic advocacy. Google reviewed my legal request and removed the URL from search results for violating their personal-information policies. Despite this, the website continues to host the page and hide details behind a paywall. I have escalated this to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) and ACCC. I encourage anyone concerned about their privacy to check how their information is being used here.
(Mark James Smith is the business owner.) Please check the 1.0 rating Google reviews about him and his company.
Update: I contacted NCAT directly and was officially informed that no public record, decision, or listing exists for this matter. NCAT does not publish daily hearing lists with party names online, and no decision has been published on Caselaw NSW or AustLII.
This means the information on the site cannot have come from any publicly accessible official source. It appears to have been submitted privately by the opposing party, yet it is presented as verified public data.
Publishing personal litigation details from a non-public tribunal matter, without consent and without any public source, raises serious privacy concerns. The operator’s public response on Trustpilot was unnecessarily personal and confrontational, and the threat to publish an additional blog post about me only escalates the issue.
I requested removal through the site’s own process and received no substantive reply beyond the public Trustpilot post.
Potential users of this service should be aware that information presented as “100% from official court lists” may in fact originate from unverified private submissions.

Vastaus yritykseltä Dcpartners







