Have incorrect credit reports blocked

Published on 21.09.2006

*by Johannes Fiala, lawyer (Munich), M.B.A. (Univ.Wales), M.M. (Univ.), certified financial and investment advisor (A.F.A.), banker (www.fiala.de)
Collecting data doesn’t really bother anyone, but spreading inaccurate information can be harmful.
Here are two examples: A company is seeking cooperation with a corporate group: The buyer obtains information about the company, and also about all the shareholders personally. In the end, the company cannot explain why it was not awarded the contract. An investor discovers that his bank is liable to him for faulty advice in the financing of a capital investment and has also incorrectly settled the loan account. The bank’s customer advisor arranges for a Schufa entry “loan termination”; the investor is now unable to find a credit institution that would be willing to carry out a retraining despite his good credit rating.
Data blocking and deletion: Business information must be accurate. The credit bureaus are entitled to collect data, but they are only allowed to pass on correct data. As a rule, the credit agency will block the data as soon as it is requested to do so.
Liability for damages: The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has already decided in its ruling of 07.07.1998 (Ref. XI ZR 375/97) that a bank is also liable for passing on incorrect information. A typical occasion is, for example, the termination of a loan ? as long as there is a dispute with the bank about this (e.g. because of ineffectiveness, because of the time limit for repayment, because of counterclaims) there is regularly also a claim to data blocking. Data deletion can be requested as soon as a court decision has been made.
No claim by the credit reference agency to your data: If a request is made to cease and desist from disseminating incorrect data, the credit reporting agency has no right to demand that the individual correct the data. It is therefore not necessary to provide correct data to the credit agency, according to the ruling of the Munich I Regional Court (Case No. 30 O 12402/01).