Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Man Prevented From Finding Chipped Pet Under Data Protection Act

Posted by samzenpus on from the clause-22 dept.

Dave Moorhouse was elated when he was informed that a microchip provider had information on the whereabouts of his stolen dog. This joy soon faded when the company informed him that it could not divulge the Jack Russell terrier's location because it would breach the Data Protection Act. Last week a court agreed with the chip company and refused Mr Moorhouse's request for a court order compelling them to reveal the name and address of the new owners. Steven Wildridge, managing director of the chip company said: “This is not a choice, it’s an obligation under the Data Protection Act. If the individuals involved do not want us to pass on their details to the original owner then we cannot do so unless compelled to following a criminal or civil proceeding."

5 of 340 comments (clear)

  1. Re:So they can just keep stolen property then? by omnichad · · Score: 5, Informative

    From the article
     

    Mr Moorhouse contacted the police who also refused to disclose the information after concluding that there was no criminal case to answer.

    A judge at Huddersfield County Court ruled that the matter was outside his jurisdiction.

  2. Re:So they can just keep stolen property then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yes, he took action against the organisation with the data not the new owners. As the organisation are not at fault they have no liability, as they have no liability the case has no merit not his request for information. He took action against the wrong people, simple as. To get the information all he has to do is go down to small claims court, pay £25, file a notice with the court for discovery against the chip maker for the details of the new owners and the magistrate will probably grant it.

    Or he could attempt to get the police to do their jobs, they would be able to get a warrant for this data without issue, but he probably has greater chance of winning the lottery in every country on earth on the same day.

  3. Re:So they can just keep stolen property then? by b0bby · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Daily Telegraph is interested in sensational stories, not making things clear. The Daily Mail (not much better) has this quote:

    "A West Yorkshire Police spokesman added: ‘If this gentleman wishes to report a theft to us, we will look into the matter. However, we are obviously unable to give members
    of the public people’s address details.’"
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1314154/Microchip-firm-wont-tell-dog-owner-stolen-pet.html

    So it appears that he hasn't reported the dog as stolen, which means that the cops & the company are right not to give him the information. But that's not much of a story, is it?

  4. Re:So they can just keep stolen property then? by bws111 · · Score: 4, Informative

    They don't know the location of the dog (the chip is not a GPS device). The only information they have is the contact information for the PERSON who registered the dog, which may not be any indication of the physical location of the dog.

  5. Re:So they can just keep stolen property then? by bws111 · · Score: 5, Informative

    How are the police supposed to do their job if they do not know there has been a crime? According to other newspapers, this guy STILL has not reported the theft of the dog to the police. The fault lies entirely with the guy who decided the best course of action was to complain to the newspapers rather than filing a police report.

    "A West Yorkshire Police spokesman added: ‘If this gentleman wishes to report a theft to us, we will look into the matter. However, we are obviously unable to give members
    of the public people’s address details.’"