KUALA LUMPUR: CTOS Data Systems Sdn Bhd (CTOS) does not have the power to formulate its own credit score, the High Court ruled recently.

Judge Datuk Akhtar Tahir said the credit rating agency was only empowered to be a repository of the credit information to which its subscribers have access.

He ruled that there was no provision in the Credit Reporting Agencies Act 2010 (CRAA) empowering CTOS to formulate a credit score or create its own criteria or percentage to formulate a credit score.

He said CTOS, besides providing credit information, had formulated a credit score based on criteria like payment history, amount owed, credit history length, credit mix, and new credit, each with assigned percentages determining a person's status.

"CTOS's main role is to collect, record, hold and store the information received.

"The company is also empowered to disseminate the information to its subscribers, and this includes financial institutions.

"By formulating a credit score, CTOS has gone beyond its statutory functions," he said.

Akhtar said this in his judgment before ordering CTOS to pay RM200,000 in general damages to Suriati Mohd Yusof, who owned a resort in Pulau Perhentian, for inaccurate credit rating.

The 43-year-old businesswoman sued CTOS for alleged negligence and breach of fiduciary duty in misrepresenting her credit rating leading to a loss of reputation, personal losses as well as business losses.

In May 2019, Suriati's application for a car loan was rejected due to a negative report from the defendant (CTOS).

Upon further inquiry, she discovered that the data collected and retained by the defendant was inaccurate, leading to a false negative rating for her.

Apart from inaccurate information, she contends that the defendant had given her a low credit score leading to loss of confidence from financial institutions.

The plaintiff found out that the credit score was based on inaccurate criteria which was not updated.

CTOS, however, argued that all information given was with the consent of the plaintiff and any information given by the defendant was subjected to verification by the parties applying for the report.

The court ruled that CRAA was enacted to empower credit agencies like the defendant to provide accurate credit information to facilitate financial agencies in approving and disbursing any financial aid to an applicant.

"Accurate information provided by the defendant was vital in the decision making of financial institutions.

"The defendant therefore had a duty to provide accurate credit information not only to the financial institutions but also to persons concerned against whom the information was related to.

"The plaintiff had evidence that the defendant was alerted that the information against her was inaccurate.

"The evidence in this case shows that the defendant chose to ignore the communication from the plaintiff and continued to maintain the said information," said Akhtar.

He said the least the defendant could have done was to either suspend the information pending verification or notify the subscribers or applicants that verification was underway.

"By choosing to be indifferent even after being alerted by the plaintiff, the defendant has clearly breached the duty of care owed towards the plaintiff."

Akhtar said the court has limited the damages awarded for the personal losses as the plaintiff's reputation as well as her relationship with her husband had broken down due to the defendant's negligence and breach of fiduciary duties.

The court also awarded RM50,000 in costs to the plaintiff.

https://www.nst.com.my/news/crime-courts/2024/03/1024102/ctos-ordered-pay-rm200000-businesswoman-inaccurate-rating