The importance of being ‘Earnest‘

Clive James Caisley was disqualified on 3 October 2003, a mere 26 days after his ‘birth’ on 7 September that same year... Caroline Lillian Passmore and Terence Kenneth Sparks appear to have been disqualified from birth – their dates of birth and dates of disqualification being the same – while Norma Emily Meadows has somehow been disqualified before she was born. Her date of birth is recorded as 25 July 2012!

I discovered all of the above in less than an hour, so why aren’t the custodians of this data running routine checks to minimise the errors in what is, after all, an important document of public record? Does the incorrect recording of these individuals’ (and others’) details on the database mean that the disqualification of any of the above is null and void? If so, this has serious consequences for us all.

Incorrect data can have a serious impact on the individual. Those who have been the victim of identity theft know only too well the effects it can have on their jobs, mortgages and credit ratings. There are also serious implications for the organisations who use the database to run checks on potential business associates – be they customers, suppliers or staff.

While the Data Protection Act imposes on Companies House the duty to keep data accurate and up-to-date, sadly it does not impose any duty to employ techniques that will assist with ensuring data accuracy (such as the simple analysis techniques which enabled me to identify the above, or data input controls).

Worryingly, given the proliferation of systems that automatically populate themselves with data from other systems, once incorrect data has been unleashed within the public domain then making sure it is corrected or deleted is nigh on impossible.

Alan Livesey, Director, IDS