Arbitrations/a20111008.1

Before: Arbitrator BernhardFröhlich (A), Respondent: CAcert (R), Claimant: Maximilian R (C), Case: a20111008.1

History Log

2011-10-08 (issue.c.o) case s20111008.51
2011-10-10 (iCM): added to wiki, request for CM / A
2011-10-10 C asks to priorize the case since he wants to collect more Assurance Points.
2011-10-13 (A): I'll pick up the case, MartinGummi will be Case Manager
2011-10-13 (A): Sent initial mail.
2011-10-14 C replies to initial mail, accepts CCA+DRP, names two Assurers (Assurer 1, Assurer 2) as witnesses for his claim.
2011-10-17 Assurer 1 replies and confirms C's claim
2011-10-17 (A): Sent request for information to support
2011-10-17 Support replies: Three Assurers have assured the account (Assurer 3, Assurer 4, Assurer 5).
2011-10-20 (A): Sent request for assistence to Assurer 3 - 5.
2011-10-21 Assurer 3 answers, has no access to the CAP forms for some weeks. He cannot remember an unusual name and considers it possible that he overlooked the typo.
2011-11-08 (A): Sent reminders to Assurers who did not response yet.
2011-11-08 Assurer 4 answers, he needs some time to access the CAP form
2011-11-08 Assurer 2 answers, he cannot remember details
2011-11-08 (A) Sent a more detailed request to Assurer 2
2011-11-10 Assurer 3 replies, his CAP form contains the (probable) typo and he has no additional notes.

Link to Arbitration case a20111008.1 (Private Part), Access for (CM) + (A) only)

One Assurer explicitly confirms C's claim
Three Assurers do not remember details
There's noone who rejects the claim.
The mistake is plausible and quite easy to overlook, no malicious intent is perceived.

Based on the statements of Claimant and Assurers as well as other collected information I give the following ruling:
The given name in the Claimant's account shall be changed by Support according to the request. No loss of Assurance Points or Experience Points is considered necessary.
The Assurers which assured the wrong name and could not provide detailed information shall be encouraged to apply more caution to evidence gathering and name checking. Given the small difference in the name no further penalty is considered necessary.
The Arbitrator keeps the option to file a seperate dispute against the Assurer who did not reply to the request for assistence.

Munich 2011-11-30

2011-11-30 (A): Sent request for execution to Support
2011-11-30 (A): Sent notification of ruling to all parties
2011-11-30 Support reports execution of ruling
2011-12-03 (A): Sent notification of execution to Assurers that have not completed their Assurance yet.
2011-12-13 (A): Sent "encouraging mail" to Assurers 3, 4 and 5.
2011-12-13 Assurer 5 answers, he did not receive the previous mails. This removes the need to file a dispute against him.
2011-12-13 This case is closed now.