Arbitrations/a20100312.3

Case Number: a20100312.3
Status: closed
Claimants: UlrichSchroeter
Respondents: Raphael H
Initial Case Manager: UlrichSchroeter
Case Manager: MartinGummi
Arbitrator: BernhardFröhlich
Date of arbitration start: 2011-09-15
Date of ruling: 2011-10-09
Case closed: 2011-10-09
Complaint: Name Mismatch on addtl. Givenname / Middlename
Relief: None necessary

Before: Arbitrator BernhardFröhlich (A), Respondent: Raphael H (R), Claimant: UlrichSchroeter (C), Case: a20100312.3

History Log

2010-03-12 (issue.c.o) case [s20100312.7]
2010-03-12 (iCM): added to wiki, request for CM / A
2011-04-06 (C): rerequesting CM/A to take care about this case
2011-09-15 (A): I'll take this case as Arbitrator, MartinGummi will be Case Manager
2011-09-15 (A): Sent initial mail
2011-09-16 C responds and accepts CCA/DRP
2011-09-30 (A): No answer received from R. Sending reminder and starting investigation.
2011-09-30 (A): Send mail to support to provide Assurances received by R
2011-10-02 R responds to initial mail, he states that the name in the account is correct.
2011-10-03 (A): Sent request for information to some of the Assurers that have assured R earlier.
2011-10-03 Assurer 1 answers, he does not have notes about R's second name.
2011-10-05 Assurer 2 answers, he rejects C's claim and confirms R.
2011-10-06 Assurer 3 answers, he's on holidays and will need some time to look up the documents.
2011-10-09 Assurer 3 answers, he rejects C's claim and confirms R.
2011-10-17 Assurer 4 answers (after case closure), he rejects C's claim and confirms R.

Original Dispute, Discovery (Private Part)

Link to Arbitration case a20100312.3 (Private Part)

EOT Private Part

Discovery

C's claim is rejected by two Assurers as well as by the Respondent.
No Assurer has confirmed C's claim

Ruling

Based on the reliable statements of two Assurers as well as the statements of the Respondent and the Claimant I give the following ruling:

The Claimant's statement that the name in the Respondent's account is incorrect could not be confirmed. Therefor a mistake in the CAP form by the Claimant seems considerably more probable. Nevertheless the Claimant's intention of pointing out a possible mistake is acknowledged.

No action on the Respondent's account is considered necessary.

Assurer 1 shall be notified that he should not complete an Assurance if he does not have notes about all names contained in the account. Since it is the first warning of Assurer 1 and no malicious intent is noticable no further penalties are considered necessary.

Munich, 2011-10-09

Execution