Court backs MoJ in database mistake

Thursday, August 06, 2009

The High Court has ruled that the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) should not have to pay compensation for a mistake made on a county court database.

The Register has reported that Andre Power, a businessman from Essex, claimed he had been financially penalised due to a mistake on a public sector database.

In July 2007, Power was taken to Southend County Court for falling behind on his mortgage payments. He settled the debt in full before it came before the judge, but a court official registered a judgement against his name for £254,000, the full value of the mortgage.

Power only became aware of the registered judgement after failing to raise £250,000 to fund a business venture. A potential investor pulled out at the last minute after a credit check with Experian revealed the uncorrected record of the judgement. The company was subsequently closed down.

A circuit judge has now corrected the record and the judgement has been removed from Power's credit file. But Power decided after this to claim for compensation from Southend County Court. This was immediately rejected so Power took it to the High Court, when in March it was rejected in favour of a government argument that a legal precedent – set by a case in which an offender served longer in prison because of an administrative mistake – meant the case should be struck off.

Power was given leave to appeal, but this week that appeal was rejected. "I've got no more recourse. What chance do I have against the court establishment?" Power said.

Phil Booth, the national coordinator of NO2ID, said: "In the database state, it's the citizen who takes all the risk and suffers the consequences - even when he or she has done nothing wrong. My sympathies go to Mr Power. I fear he's not the first and he definitely won't be the last."

He added: "This is indeed very worrying, and precisely the sort of situation that the database state and mass data trafficking tends to exacerbate. I wouldn't say that Mr Power's story is typical, but it starkly illustrates the dangers and shows that bureaucratic cock-ups and foot dragging are far from a victimless crime."

An HM Courts Service spokesman refused to discuss the implications of the ruling.