• Arbitrations
• a20141011.1

• Case Number: a20141011.1
• Status: closed
• Claimant 1: Johannes K (former C)
• Claimant 2: Benedikt H (added at 2014-12-23, claiming only about the further existance of the assurances made by C1)
• Respondent: CAcert

• initial Case Manager: EvaStöwe

• Case Manager: MartinGummi

• Arbitrator: EvaStöwe

• Date of arbitration start: 2014-12-07
• Date of ruling: 2014-12-27
• Case closed: 2014-12-31
• Complaint: Delete assurer account Johannes K
• Relief: TBD

Before: Arbitrator EvaStöwe (A), Respondent: CAcert (R), Claimants: Johannes K (C1), Benedikt H (C2), Case: a20141011.1

History Log

• 2014-10-11 (issue.c.o): case [s20140922.61]
• 2014-11-03 (iCM): added to wiki, request for CM / A
• 2014-11-03 (iCM): notifies C about case
• 2014-12-07 (A): I'll take care of this case together with CM
• 2014-12-07 (A): init mail send to C
• 2014-12-10 (C): wants to leave, but CAP forms were destroyed because the assumption that account was closed, proposal to re-assure assurees, or to revoke assurances (nobody would drop below 100 points)
• 2014-12-10 (A): asks support for confirmation that nobody would drop below 100 points if assurances would be revoked
• 2014-12-11 (Support): confirms that nobody would drop below 100 points if assurances would be revoked
• 2014-12-(12-14): collects opinions of two neutral members, common feeling: revoke would be sensible, consults with CM
• 2014-12-15 (A): mentions the case in a call with the internal auditor who disagrees about the need to revoke the assurances
• 2014-12-20 (A): starts a discussion on the Arbitration list
• 2014-12-20 (A): asks internal Auditor if he would join the case as claimant regarding the further existence of the assurances
• 2014-12-21 (internal Auditor): confirms opinion, does not want to join the case regarding the termination of the account, but only as additional claimant
• 2014-12-21 (A): explains proposal again to internal Auditor, alternatively proposes to split case
• 2014-12-21 (A): proposes to C to terminate account, membership and claimant role, but leaving the question regarding the assurances open with the auditor as new claimant
• 2014-12-22 (internal Auditor): gives ok to As last proposal
• 2014-12-22 (C): accepts proposal, asks to get account closed soon, has made a donation because of additional work, suggests wording of first mail
• 2014-12-23 (A): adds internal Auditor as additional claimant C2, thanks C1 for donation
• 2014-12-27 (A): ruling, send to C1, C2, Support, CM
• 2014-12-27 (Support): ask for an execution request
• 2014-12-29 to to 2014-12-31 side discuss

• 2014-12-31 (A): split part about the revocation of the assurances to a20141231.1

• 2014-12-31 (CM): close case

Private Part

• Link to Arbitration case a20141011.1 (Private Part), Access for (CM) + (A) only

EOT Private Part

original Dispute

• Hi,
  please delete my account [email-address].
  I don't need it anymore.
  
  Thanks for your great service.

Parts in [] anonymised.

Discovery

• The claimant is an assurer and wants to terminate the account. When he entered the dispute he assumed that the account would be closed and destroyed the assurances because of this.
• When asked to hand over the assurances he was sorry about the deletion and proposed to re-assure the assurees. He also proposed that the assurances could be revoked.
• None of the assurees would drop below 100 points if the assurances would be revoked.

2014-12-23: Benedikt H (internal Auditor) is added as claimant C2 to this case. His claim is not about the closure of the account of the original claimant but that the assurances made by the claimant should survive, even as the CAP forms are destroyed.

Summary of Benedikts position as stated in previous mails:

that assurances should only be
revoked if there is doubt in the correctness of the assurance. The
existence of the documentation should not be the reason for revoking
assurances, as long as there is no doubt about the correctness and
validity of the assurance. The knowledge of the existence of the CAP
form should be even less a reason for a revoke as this is quite random
and would lead to unfair treatment of assurees.

Ruling

Support should close the account of the original claimant as soon as possible. The assurances of this account should be left valid but they should not be taken in account by determining the termination date of the membership.

If the assurances have to be revoked is not decided in this ruling. This part of the case should be split up and be handled in a separate case.

Hamburg, 2014-12-27

Execution

• 2014-12-27 (A): ruling, send to C1, C2, Support, CM
• 2014-12-28 (A): confirm execution request
• 2014-12-29 (Support): delete confirmation for the account
• 2014-12-31 (A): split case

2014-12-31: The part of this case that handles the further existence of the assurances done by the original claimant are hereby split from this case and handled under the case number a20141231.1. All parts regarding the original claimant are handled. The account is anonymised, the termination date for the CCA set. There is no need for him being claimant anymore. So only the second claimant will be claimant of a20141231.1.

Similiar Cases

• CategoryArbitration

• CategoryArbCaseAccountDelAssurer