- Case Number: a20100103.1
- Status: closed
- Claimants: Martin Gummi
- Respondents: Dariush Forouher
Case Manager: AlexanderPrinsier
- Date of arbitration start: 2010-02-26
- Date of ruling: 2010-07-16
- Case closed: 2010-07-16
- Complaint: unverified middle name in account
on my CAP form about <respondent> there is no middle name. Please you to do a deeper check about the users account name against all or the last assurances made because there is a possible data inconstancy between ID docs, CAP forms and Account name at least from my and <name anonymized> assurance.
Before: Arbitrator UlrichSchroeter (A), Respondent: Dariush Forouher (R), Claimant: Martin Gummi (C), Case: a20100103.1
2010-01-04 (UlrichSchroeter): case a20091231.1 re-open or new case # results in new case #
- 2010-01-04 (A): I'll take care about this case as (A)
- 2010-01-12 (A): re-request for (CM) in arbitration mailing list
- 2010-02-25 (CM): I'll take care about this case
- 2010-02-25 (A): sent initmailing to (C), (R)
- 2010-02-25 (A): requesting from Support: a) Name in account splitted in fields b) Assurances rcvd c) Assurances given from (R)
- 2010-02-25 (A): rcvd requested infos from support
- 2010-02-25 (C): there is a typo in name of (C) in initmailing
- 2010-02-26 (R): accepts CCA/DRP under this arbitration, and sends his PoV
- 2010-02-26 (A): acceptance of CCA/DRP from (C) can be assumed, because (C) is also an Arbitration team member
- 2010-02-26 (A): req of one ID doc scan (passport or IDcard or drivers license) from (R)
- 2010-02-26 (R): sent IDcard front scan to (A) that states a 2nd givenname in ID doc
- 2010-02-26 (A): forwarding info to (CM)
- 2010-04-11 (A): got statement from (CM)
- 2010-06-10 (CM): requesting progress from A
- 2010-06-29 (A): requesting Assurance infos from (AS1), (AS2), (AS3), (AS4), (AS5)
2nd givenname on CAP?
mets account info?
- 2010-06-29 (AS3): CAP form scan will be delayed, cause I'm on a move
- 2010-06-30 (AS2): sent CAP form scan, 2nd givenname on CAP
- 2010-07-02 (AS1): sent CAP form scan, 2nd givenname on CAP
- 2010-07-02 (AS3): confirms, 2nd givenname on CAP
- 2010-07-08 (A): sent reminder to (AS4), (AS5)
- 2010-07-08 (A): rcvd information, that the message sent to (AS4) is considered to be spam by the receiving email system filter. forwarded to a 2nd email address that has been added to the reply, with notification about CCA 3.5 Communication
- 2010-07-08 (AS5): I can scan the form, as soon as I arrive in Germany again
- 2010-07-09 (AS4): sent CAP form scan via a family member
- 2010-07-15 (AS5): sent CAP form scan, 2nd givenname on CAP
- (R) has 6 Assurances rcvd before March 2009 (Rollout AP, CCA) and the 2009 ATE's
- IDcard front scan from (R) states givenname with 2nd givenname / middlename
- At least 5 Assurers confirmed middle name on ID documents and on CAP forms vs. online account information
- concerns about an identity forgery lacks each reason
- missing middlename on CAP form cannot be interpreted as a failure of Assuree. Its an Assurers duty to check missing middle names on CAP forms and probably have to make a note on the CAP form, that he has seen a 2nd givenname / middlename in the ID doxs. Also the Assurer has to note name variations in different ID doxs on the CAP form, so that he can later compare notations against the name given in the online account
- there was no malfeasance of any type alleged or found
- Assurance in question was made 2008-03-06
AP to Draft date relates to p20080712.1 (July 2008): Proposal for Assurance Policy to move from WIP to DRAFT status
- the rules regarding names have been in flux since claimant became an assurer
CCA: p20080109.1 CCA to POLICY status (January 2008)
- CAP forms (cap.php) before June 2009 doesn't includes AP refences
The Assurance in question was made before AP comes to Draft and takes effect. Also the general rule to stop assurance if there is an issue with information increase (i.e. addtl. givennames, titles) have been pushed out to the assurers after AP was 9 months in effect.
As the verification of the CAP form against the data in the online account differs only by the 2nd givenname, but the 1st givenname, the lastname and the DoB were correct, (C) finished the assurance with this minor difference.
At the time of Assurance AP wasn't in effect, but CCA was. The simple definition in CCA is: 2.3 Obligations - You are obliged ... 1. to provide accurate information as part of Assurance. No direct reference to AP as AP wasn't in Draft at this time. CAP forms before June 2009 had no direct reference to AP.
So therefor this minor difference between ID doxs of (R), CAP form that (C) have and again the name in the online account of (R) doesn't needs a correction in either way. The assurance of (C) over (R) doesn't needs to be revoked, as the assurance made March 2008 follows the rules in place at this time. So therefor no actions needed.
Frankfurt/Main, July 16th 2010
- 2010-07-16 (A): ruling sent to (C), (R), (CM)
- 2010-07-16 (A): case closed