Short answer
Latvia's , the Credit Information Bureau Law, gives an individual a structured correction process. The person may first obtain the information processed about them, then submit a written objection either to the bureau or to the user that supplied the data. Supporting documents may be attached.
Once notified, the bureau must mark the information as disputed while the responsible supplier examines the objection. The supplier generally has one month to give a reasoned response. If the bureau's record does not match what the supplier sent, or the supplier confirms that the data is wrong, the bureau corrects or deletes it and promptly notifies users that received it during the preceding 12 months.
A rejected objection does not automatically erase a debt. If the individual continues to dispute its existence or amount, the bureau must retain a marker showing that written objections have been made. The individual may also complain to Datu valsts inspekcija (DVI), which can inspect the bureau and order erroneous or unlawfully entered information to be corrected or deleted. The GDPR and Latvia's Personal Data Processing Law continue to apply alongside this special procedure.
Obtain the information that needs to be challenged
Section 19 gives a natural person the right, under the GDPR, to receive information that the bureau processes about them. Access is free online or in person at the bureau. Postal access is available subject to the bureau's procedure and the actual postal-service cost.
The right also covers information about a bureau user that used the bureau to request and receive information from a state information system. That access trail may be important where the problem is not only the content of a debt entry but also who obtained related information.
An effective request should identify the person reliably and seek the complete record: creditor or supplier, initial and current amount, first-default date, insertion and update dates, repayment or termination information, dispute fields, recipients or access information available under the law, and the source on which the bureau relies.
Submit a written objection to either responsible actor
Section 22(1) creates two entry points. The individual may submit a written objection to the bureau or to the credit-information user that supplied the information.
Ja klients uzskata, ka kredītinformācijas biroja datubāzē ir iekļautas kļūdainas ziņas, tas iesniedz kredītinformācijas birojam vai kredītinformācijas lietotājam rakstveida iebildumu.
—
The person may attach copies of documents supporting the objection. If an authorized representative submits it, the authority must be notarized. The objection should identify each challenged field and state the requested result—correction, update, deletion, or continued dispute marking—rather than merely saying the report is unfair.
Useful supporting material may include the agreement, payment evidence, account statements, settlement or release, assignment notices, creditor correspondence, a final judgment, or identity evidence showing that the record belongs to someone else. The required evidence depends on what is alleged to be wrong.
What happens when the objection goes to the supplier
If the individual sends the objection to the credit-information user, Section 22(3) requires that user to examine it under the GDPR procedure and immediately notify the bureau that the specific information is disputed. Until the bureau receives the user's reasoned answer, the bureau must add a marker to the database.
The Act requires the user to examine the objection within one month of receipt and give the individual a reasoned response, with a copy to the bureau. The one-month period belongs to the substantive supplier review; the notice to the bureau and the dispute marker are immediate steps.
This route is appropriate when the bureau accurately reproduces what the creditor supplied but the individual says the supplier's underlying facts are wrong—for example, the amount, payment status, default date, contractual identity or continuing entitlement to report.
What happens when the objection goes to the bureau
If the individual sends the objection to the bureau, Section 22(4) first requires the bureau to compare its stored record with the information supplied by the user. This reflects the statutory division of responsibility: the bureau is responsible for correspondence between its database and the supplied data, while the supplier is responsible for completeness, truthfulness, consistency with the customer agreement and updates.
If the bureau record matches the supplier's data, the bureau immediately forwards the objection to that supplier, marks the information as disputed pending a reasoned answer, and the supplier has one month from receiving the bureau's request to answer both the bureau and the individual.
If the bureau record does not match the supplier's data, the bureau has identified an error within its own responsibility and must correct or delete under Section 22(5).
Correction or deletion must reach earlier recipients
Where the bureau finds a mismatch, or the supplier informs it that erroneous information was included, Section 22(5) requires correction or deletion. The remedial step is not confined to the current database.
Kredītinformācijas birojs labo vai dzēš ziņas un par šo ziņu labošanu vai dzēšanu nekavējoties informē tos kredītinformācijas lietotājus, kuriem kredītinformācijas birojs šīs ziņas sniedzis pēdējo 12 mēnešu laikā.
—
The bureau must promptly inform the users to whom it supplied the affected information in the preceding 12 months. An individual seeking an effective remedy should therefore ask for confirmation of both the database change and the downstream notification, including the date and scope of the correction.
A rejected debt objection remains visible as a dispute
The supplier may conclude that a debt objection is unfounded. If the individual receives that answer, tells the bureau they disagree and continues to assert that the debt's existence or amount is wrong, Section 22(6) requires the bureau to mark that written objections have been received.
This is not the same as deciding the underlying civil dispute. It prevents the database from presenting the debt as wholly uncontested while the parties disagree. A lender using the report should consider the marker and underlying evidence rather than treating the original entry as a final adjudication.
For other payment-obligation information that is not debt information, Section 22(7) connects the dispute to the deletion route in Section 16(3). The individual may ask the supplying user to delete fulfilled-obligation information, but there is no right to insist on deletion where the user still has a lawful basis and statutory purpose for including it.
Special mechanisms when the supplying user has left the bureau
Section 17 deals with data from a former credit-information user after the bureau agreement ends. Debt information that may lawfully remain can be corrected, updated or deleted through several mechanisms:
- an in-person joint acknowledgment signed by the former user and the customer—or the person wrongly identified as the customer;
- equivalent acknowledgments with notarized signatures;
- a final court or arbitral decision establishing materially different debt content;
- the bureau's finding that its database does not match information supplied by the former user; or
- another case and procedure established by the bureau.
This prevents termination of the supplier's bureau contract from making correction impossible. It also shows why a final judgment must be read for what it actually establishes: identity, existence, amount or another substantive element.
Complaint to Datu valsts inspekcija
Section 23 makes DVI the supervisory authority. DVI must examine complaints about bureau activity and may audit the bureau, obtain information and documents, examine systems and procedures, and require erroneous or unlawfully entered information to be corrected or deleted.
Datu valsts inspekcijai … [ir tiesības] pieprasīt, lai tiek labotas vai dzēstas kredītinformācijas biroja datubāzē kļūdaini vai nelikumīgi iekļautās ziņas.
—
An official act or factual action by a DVI official can be challenged before the DVI director. The director's act and the decision on that challenge may be appealed to court under Latvia's administrative-procedure rules. This supervisory route concerns the legality of bureau processing; it should not be confused with civil proceedings needed to determine the underlying contractual debt.
A practical challenge file
A well-structured challenge should preserve:
- the full bureau disclosure and access date;
- the exact fields disputed and why;
- the supplying user's identity where available;
- supporting documents and their dates;
- proof that the written objection was delivered;
- the bureau's dispute-marker confirmation;
- the one-month deadline and reasoned response;
- the correction/deletion confirmation and 12-month recipient notice; and
- any continuing-dispute statement, DVI complaint or court decision.
Accuracy, legal basis, retention and the existence of a debt are separate questions. A payment receipt may require updating the current amount without requiring immediate erasure of all historic debt information; mistaken identity may require deletion; a disputed legal claim may require a marker while the merits remain unresolved.
MCP source-quality finding
The production source-language Search returned the current Credit Information Bureau Law as the sole result. Its identity, current version and amendment metadata were coherent. Targeted Fetch returned the complete Section 22 objection process and adjacent supervisory provisions without truncation. No new MCP or source-ingest issue was found for this question.
Latvian structural section retrieval remains unavailable and is already tracked in . Source-language lexical Fetch was sufficient here.
Conclusion
An individual can obtain their file, object in writing to the bureau or supplier, require a temporary dispute marker and a reasoned one-month review, and obtain correction or deletion where an error is confirmed. Corrected data must be propagated to users that received it during the previous 12 months. A continuing rejected debt objection remains marked rather than automatically erased. Where the ordinary process fails or the data was unlawfully entered, DVI can investigate and order correction or deletion, with administrative appeal rights preserved.
Sources
This article provides general legal information, not advice for a specific matter. Laws, facts and procedural deadlines may change the result. Follow the linked primary sources and obtain local advice before acting.