Risk & liability allocation
Who is liable when data flowing through PDTF turns out to be wrong, late, or missing. Tested in the Sandbox; will need to be formalised before national rollout.
Status
This is a stub for upcoming work. The structure below is what we plan to populate; existing artefacts in source/ that feed it are cited inline.
Current state
The Sandbox is operational and is the proving ground for liability models. From OPDA's own description:
"Regulatory gaps are identified, consumer consent and liability models are tested, and the security and governance standards required for a national rollout are developed in the open."
Source: source/07-website/rendered/smart-property-data-trust-framework.html
Open liability questions
- Who is liable if a Verified Claim is wrong — the issuer, the relying party, or OPDA as the standards body?
- What about stale data (correct when issued, wrong now)?
- What's the liability for orchestrators (Coadjute, PEXA) who pass claims between participants?
- How does this interact with the professional indemnity insurance regimes of conveyancers, surveyors, valuers?
- What's the consumer redress route when a transaction fails because of PDTF data?
Precedents to borrow from
- Open Banking — clear separation of authorised TPPs, ASPSPs, and FCA-regulated liability
- HMLR title guarantee — the state-backed indemnity model for registered titles
- Law Society practice notes — already define conveyancer due-diligence standards
Who needs to be in the room
OPDA can't decide this alone. Likely participants: FCA, ICO, SRA, CLC, RICS, UK Finance, BSA, MHCLG, plus the PII insurers of the regulated professions.