{"id":62126,"date":"2024-03-12T12:03:33","date_gmt":"2024-03-12T04:03:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.imoney.my\/articles\/?p=62126"},"modified":"2024-03-12T12:03:33","modified_gmt":"2024-03-12T04:03:33","slug":"high-court-rules-against-ctos","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.imoney.my\/articles\/high-court-rules-against-ctos","title":{"rendered":"CTOS To Appeal High Court Ruling For Inaccurate Credit Rating"},"content":{"rendered":"
Recently, CTOS Data Systems Sdn Bhd (CTOS) came into the media limelight due to a <\/span>High Court ruling against the firm and ordered to pay up to RM200,000 in general damages to the owner of a resort for an inaccurate credit rating.<\/p>\n Here’s a quick summary of the recent case.<\/p>\n CTOS has come under fire recently as a resort owner by the name of Suriati Mohd Yusof took the company to court over a poor credit rating that saw her car loan rejected in 2019.<\/span><\/p>\n According to reporting by the <\/span>New Straits Times<\/span><\/a>, the 43-year old business woman sued CTOS for alleged negligence and breach of fiduciary duty in misrepresenting her credit rating, which resulted in a loss of reputation, personal losses as well as business losses.<\/span><\/p>\n Judge Datuk Akhtar Tahir eventually ruled the case in favour of Ms Suriati. He stated that: \u201cThe defendant’s (CTOS) main role is to collect, record, hold, and store the information received. The defendant is also empowered to disseminate the information to its subscribers and this included (the) financial institution\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n According to the ruling, the responsibility lies with the credit reporting company to verify the credit information it provides.\u00a0 The judge had also mentioned that the plaintiff had informed CTOS of the inaccurate information.<\/p>\n According to Judge Akhtar, the least CTOS could have done was to suspend the information in question pending verification or notify the recipient that the information was being verified.<\/span><\/p>\n In summary, the court found that CTOS had reached the duty of care owed to the plaintiff as well as overstepped the functions they were originally registered for under the Credit Reporting Agencies Act 2010 (CRAA)<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n In response to the High Court ruling, CTOS has promptly responded and filed an appeal against the ruling.<\/p>\n<\/span>Suriati Mohd Yusof vs CTOS<\/b><\/span><\/h2>\n
<\/span>CTOS files appeal<\/span><\/h2>\n