Very cross with Registry's CROS system

THE EDITOR: In February 2023, the Companies Registry introduced the CROS system in an effort to digitise and streamline filing of documents.

Fast-forward a year later: as a regular user of CROS, I can say the utilisation of this system is an ongoing virtual nightmare, as exemplified by the following, which is by no means an exhaustive list.

* Extreme tardiness in addressing complaints raised via the CROS electronic ticket system. Tickets can remain unaddressed for weeks and even months, necessitating frequent follow-up with CROS by the person who initiated the ticket.

* Great difficulty reaching CROS personnel even if one has been fortunate enough to speak to someone, providing current extension numbers. Many extensions have no working facility to leave a message.

* CROS personnel advising that a query requires the assistance of someone else have often re-directed calls to non-responsive extensions which have later been confirmed as unmanned.

* The ticket system has been so designed that if a ticket is redirected to another department, CROS personnel “cannot see” the initial query raised and worse, cannot advise who is currently addressing the ticket. Remedy: issue another ticket referring to the original ticket or issue a message under the original ticket and hope for the best.

* When applying for an individual CROS account, a person may specify the companies he/she is associated with. Counter-intuitively, those very companies are not automatically associated with the individual’s account after CROS approval. Users must request CROS personnel or raise a ticket to implement the association.

* Where approval (an e-mail) is granted for those instances requiring manual filing of annual returns, approval is not effectively disseminated to the registry’s regional offices – the onus is on the public user to prove he is not presenting a fraudulent e-mail.

The registry obviously manually migrated data from its pre-CROS records to the CROS database without adequate oversight, resulting in numerous errors which are no fault of CROS applicants, who find themselves effectively penalised in having to deal with CROS for rectification.

* The mechanics of CROS itself have not been adequately test-checked. For example, any change in mailing address as opposed to registered office is interpreted as a requested change in registered office, which requires additional filing.

* The indexing system for selection of documents for paid download is, apparently, being updated manually and accordingly, individual file download selection lists do not necessarily reflect all documents actually filed under CROS.

* Mention should be made of the San Fernando Companies Registry Office at Leotaud Street. Numerous calls to its two designated contact numbers over the last year were never answered.

Should John Public rest assured that personal data required to set up individual accounts (including verification statements specifying personal information uploaded by authorised corporate service providers for individual account approval) will remain secure in light of some of the experiences highlighted?

At the current rate, can we look forward to yet another extension (the current one is set to expire in August) of the registry's filing amnesty?

Lance Scheaffer

Via e-mail