Moti­on Sava­ry (12.3578): Cre­dit rating data­ba­ses. A pro­blem that must be solved

Moti­on Sava­ry (12.3578): Cre­dit rating data­ba­ses. A pro­blem that must be solved
Rejec­ted (27.09.2012)

Sub­mit­ted text

The Fede­ral Coun­cil is ins­truc­ted to pro­hi­bit, by means of an amend­ment to the Fede­ral Act on Data Pro­tec­tion, the recor­ding of data on the sol­ven­cy of pri­va­te indi­vi­du­als in data­ba­ses other than the debt coll­ec­tion regi­ster and the data­ba­se of the Con­su­mer Cre­dit Infor­ma­ti­on Office (IKO).

Justi­fi­ca­ti­on

Cre­dit­wort­hi­ness data­ba­ses con­tain infor­ma­ti­on about the sol­ven­cy of pri­va­te indi­vi­du­als. They belong to pri­va­te cre­dit agen­ci­es and are lar­ge­ly unknown to the public and, even worse, to the indi­vi­du­als concerned.

Against payment, ever­yo­ne can get access to this data. Regi­stered per­sons have the right to request infor­ma­ti­on about their own data as well as its dele­ti­on. Howe­ver, very few peo­p­le know that they are regi­stered, and if they do, they do not know which com­pa­ny to cont­act. This opaque situa­ti­on con­tra­dicts the prin­ci­ples of the Fede­ral Data Pro­tec­tion Act.

Ano­ther pro­blem ari­ses: the accu­ra­cy of the stored data. The infor­ma­ti­on is often inac­cu­ra­te, the claims dubio­us, or the­re is a mix-up of names (hom­ony­my). Even good payers, and some­ti­mes even child­ren, are on the­se lists. The enti­re popu­la­ti­on can the­r­e­fo­re fall vic­tim to abu­si­ve data coll­ec­tion. The fact that this data is available in cre­dit rating data­ba­ses and can be view­ed by anyo­ne at will can have serious con­se­quen­ces. This is becau­se the rating system of the cre­dit bure­aus (the A gra­de is the hig­hest) can be con­sul­ted by any per­son or com­pa­ny wis­hing to obtain infor­ma­ti­on about a citi­zen (e.g. admi­ni­stra­ti­ons, employers, when gran­ting small loans or taking out tele­pho­ne sub­scrip­ti­ons). Why is a per­son regi­stered in such a data coll­ec­tion? Why does it have a cer­tain rating and no other? The­re are no spe­ci­fi­ca­ti­ons as to how long the data may be stored, and the­re is no defi­ni­ti­on of what con­sti­tu­tes good or bad payers. It is not uncom­mon for a bad gra­de to be assi­gned based on a simp­le delay in payment.

The­se data coll­ec­tions have no legal basis, unli­ke the debt coll­ec­tion regi­ster and the IKO data­ba­se, which is based on the Fede­ral Con­su­mer Cre­dit Act. They must the­r­e­fo­re be pro­hi­bi­ted by law.

State­ment of the Fede­ral Council

The acti­vi­ties of pri­va­te cre­dit report­ing agen­ci­es are in ten­si­on with the pro­tec­tion of the pri­va­cy of the per­sons cover­ed by the cre­dit report­ing agen­ci­es. Pri­va­te cre­dit report­ing agen­ci­es must com­ply with the Fede­ral Act on Data Pro­tec­tion of 19 June 1992 (FADP; SR 235.1), which takes this ten­si­on into account, when pro­ce­s­sing the data of natu­ral per­sons and legal enti­ties. The Fede­ral Coun­cil con­siders the com­ple­te ban on the regi­stra­ti­on of per­so­nal data in the area of cre­dit­wort­hi­ness by pri­va­te cre­dit report­ing agen­ci­es pro­po­sed by the moti­on to be too far-rea­ching. Howe­ver, it is pre­pared to exami­ne the ext­ent to which the­re is a need for addi­tio­nal legis­la­ti­ve action in this con­text. This exami­na­ti­on can be car­ri­ed out as part of the work on the revi­si­on of the FADP. Pre­pa­ra­to­ry work on this has now begun after the Fede­ral Coun­cil came to the con­clu­si­on, fol­lo­wing the recent eva­lua­ti­on of the DPA, that the law should be revi­sed (see the Fede­ral Council’s report on the eva­lua­ti­on of the DPA of 9 Decem­ber 2011, BBl 2012 335ff.).

Aut­ho­ri­ty

Area

Topics

Rela­ted articles

Sub­scri­be