UK Man Prevented From Finding Chipped Pet Under Data Protection Act

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."

Comments

So they can just keep stolen property then?

[elrous0]

Why wasn't this treated as a criminal (or even civil property) matter? Aren't the new owners guilty of receiving stolen property? I mean, even if they didn't know it before (assuming they bought the dog from the thief and didn't realize it was stolen), they obviously do now. I've never seen a case where stolen property was found and the cops just let the holders keep it. Maybe fences should start chipping *all* their stolen goods before reselling them ("All these items chipped for your protection. Safe as buying from a reputable store!").

And even if the dog wasn't stolen, it's still the original owner's property, no? Did the UK abolish property rights for pets or something?

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[EndlessNameless]

He has to file suit in order for it to be a civil or criminal matter.

A judge will almost certainly issue an order for the information to be released once he advises the court that his pet has a locator device.

Although the situation is a bit odd, I approve of a law which requires court action before any who isn't me can be provided my location.

The new owners likely have no idea that the dog was stolen, and handling the situation through the courts is much less likely to explode than allowing the company to hand out home addresses to aggrieved parties.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[characterZer0]

The proper course of action would be for the original owner to file charges and attempt to get a court order to get the address.

The company is refusing, as it should, to provide private information without a court order.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Algorithmnast]

Once more, the law trumps _apparent_ common sense. Unfortunately, the common sense approach here forgets one simple thing: any claim of foul play (or if this were a duck, Fowl Play) for property rights has to go through a court system.

I really sympathize with the guy, but if I wanted my pet back, I'd report it as stolen and get the legal ball rolling.

These sorts of laws are meant to stop well-intentioned entities (such as the data companies) from releasing the right information to the wrong people. Want to prove you're the right person? Then prove it as part of the legal process. I'd rather be annoyed than have someone trick the car recovery company into delivering it to them... (yeah a weak analogy - shrug)

Of course, the lawyers (like bookies) still get rich from both parties.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[yivi]

It would be so wonderful if there was a way to find out what really happened...

Alas, we have to live in ignorance.
 

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[wvmarle]

This person has filed suit already, the court rejected his request because (ftfa) the court ruled it was not within its jurisdiction to issue such an order. So he simply went to the "wrong" court and will have to go to a higher court or so. I do not see a reason why he can not get a court order to get the new owner's details. I'm sure he can get advice from either the judge who rejected his order or the police which court to go to next, to get the actual order. This whole story seems to be blown totally out of proportion; the man was obviously getting desperate or so and is not willing to go the proper way to get to this information.

The chip company I fully support: they should not ever give out personal information without court orders. That's basic privacy protection.

And who the dog now belongs to... well that's a whole different matter.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Minwee]

And if they can't give that information to him, they can certainly give it to the police.

But Mr. Moorehouse lives in England. The police have better things to do than waste their time dealing with stolen property, like using surveillance cameras to track down people who try to take pictures of police officers.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Algorithmnast]

Ah - so the police are the morons in this case.

While the lawmakers have to create smart laws, the police have to actually help the courts uphold them.

Or else you get the situation where the people wear their pants half off of their butts, and then you can easily tell who might mug you - from the fact that their pants are worn normally!

Weird, when the normally behaving people look like criminals.

But when the police won't bother enforcing the law, then you get oddities - like this guy who wants his pet back but may become a "criminal" if he continues to press for what used to be his rights.

As for the judge... unlike in America, it looks like UK judges correctly understand that they are only to rule on court cases, and not on their perception of injustice. [In the U.S., courts have ordered things done when they had no legal standing to address the issue.]

So the court is unable to address the issue until the police do their job.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[v1]

The chip company I fully support: they should not ever give out personal information without court orders. That's basic privacy protection.

The point many seem to be overlooking is that the original owner was sold a product specifically designed to identify their property. I very much doubt any information was given to the owner that "and oh by the way, when you find you NEED to locate your pet, we're going to use this law as an excuse not to provide you with the service you are purchasing from us today".

So while the chipper technically is behaving legally, the original terms of sale etc are not being honored, and at this point, going after them on these grounds may be the best recourse. But then, winning a judgement against the chipper for breach of contract or unfit for purpose won't get them their pet back, but just might win a large enough judgement to force some change.

The two sorts of change that may occur are to either add a term in their contract saying they won't help under this circumstance, or adding a term saying if you bring your animal to us to chip and we find out it's already chipped, you agree beforehand that we can turn your information over. Of course the latter makes more sense for the consumer.

But the whole matter of the judge claiming no jurisdiction may just mean they have to take their case to a judge that does feel they have jurisdiction. But you've probably got the original owner in one state, the new owner in another state, and the chipper in a third state, so this may just prove to be a complete runaround with no one willing to claim jurisdiction.
 

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[bsDaemon]

So, I pay for a chip for my dog to let me know where it is if it gets lost or stolen. My dog gets lost or stolen, and the company knows where it is, but won't tell me, and they're "doing the right thing?" That's some ol' bullshit, dude.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[debrain]

While the company cannot make disclosure of the new owners' address, there might not be anything stopping the company from forwarding a letter from the prior owner to the new owners, which letter asks the new owners to respond.

The most effective and efficacious resolution of this dispute in favour of the prior owner is an agreement by the new owners to return the dog to the (apparently) rightful prior owner. This avoids legal costs of production and argument, the delay of a hearing, the uncertainty of Courts, and the quagmire of an appeal. As well, in certain jurisdictions, such a letter puts the onus on the new owners to respond - and if they do not they may be responsible for some of the costs of any legal action required to get their address.

I would argue, then, that the "proper course", so to speak, is to write the new owners care of ("c/o") the company who knows their address. If the new owners do not respond, then you can engage the legal system to compel the company to forward the letter.

All that failing, once a legal action commences there is generally an obligation on the company to make disclosure of information relevant to the resolution of the case. In this instance, the address of the to-be respondents (the current owners) would be relevant, as (1) they are entitled to notice that legal action has commenced so they may respond, and (2) their information is necessary to enforce any order that would require the return of the dog (and, arguably, to prevent the to-be respondents from fleeing their current address with the dog so as to escape enforcement).

Food for thought.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[wvmarle]

You are mixing up identification with locating.

Identification: "look I have a dog here, please tell me the serial number, and if available the name and other details of this dog". That the chipping company obviously has done. The current owner of the dog went to a vet, had the already present microchip read, and requested they be registered as owner of the dog.

Locating: "my dog is lost; this was its serial number, please tell me where it is and who claims to be its current owner". That the company is not allowed to disclose without court order.

If you want to sue the chipping company, you're surely on the losing side. The chip put in place is for identification as you say yourself. That's different from locating, in a way the exact opposite even. And the identification part obviously worked as advertised.

And by the way you don't have to worry about that "states" thing. This story is not set in the US, but in the UK. And no that's not a part of the US.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[biryokumaru]

How on earth would a regular person have any idea how to do all that crap? He shouldn't need to hire a lawyer to tell him how to get his stolen dog back.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems to me the correct coarse of action is to file a case against John/Jane doe for theft/posession of stolen property (the dog). The subpena the identity of the regisered owners from the chip manufaturer.

In the US that would trivially get you the identity of the people who posess the dog, and in coaurt you could recieve the cash value of the dog as reward for the case (I don't believ you can get the actuall do back as the rulling of a civil case). Alternatively once you have the identity of the defendant and they are notified of the case against them you can likely offer to settle out of court for the retun of the dog and then drop the case.

Of coarse I'm not a lawyer just a guy with a bit of common sence who had a couple family members studying to become lawyers/paralegals at one time so my infomation may be incorrect. Also it's US centric so not nesesarily relevent to the UK.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[randizzle3000]

Maybe the new owners tried to get the previous owner's info and were faced with the same dilemma (disclosure of personal information of the previous owner) and they decided to just keep the dog?

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[L4t3r4lu5]

You missed selling recreational substances. God forbid if you're ever caught with more than one bag of ganj on you, as more than one bag obviously means that the other one is for selling, not that the dealer just sold it that way.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[MozeeToby]

You forgot one: Unless it's a violent or significant crime, orit generates revenue the police just aren't interested. In my experience, police spend 90% of their active time doing the later.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Anonymous Coward]

And if it's not your dog, you can just say "Have it transferred to me anyway!" and the original owner can't do anything about it. Sounds great!

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[rjstanford]

Wouldn't the police have to decide it was a criminal matter? If its stolen, then if he filed a police report, wouldn't that be good enough?

Good question. Of course, since he apparently hasn't filed a police report yet, despite the police statement strongly suggesting that if he did so, they'd be able to help him, we may never know.

Sheesh.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[geekoid]

It's not a universal problem, it a universal perception. People seem to think that if they have an issue the police should just do what ever they say based on their word.

Yu do not want to live in a world like that.

People also seem to think the police have infinite resources and don't need to prioritize.

The vast majority of police in the US do try and take care of these issues and help. They are bound by rules and regulation and budget just like everyone else.

It also doesn't help that their pay is so low.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Maxo-Texas]

And revenue producing activity. Heck, the police can spend all day sitting out with radar guns as the end of the month approaches.

But, the broken window on my car covered with fingerprints they wouldn't take..

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[lgw]

There is certainly somehting the police can do: the police handle reports of stolen property all the time (or, at least, when they can be bothered to do their job). Once this guy gets a clue and files a police report, they can investigate, and determine who the real owner is. Since this guy has easy proof the dog is his (the chip), it should end well.

Same situation when your stereo is stolen, and you see in at a pawn shop. If you have some actual proof that it's yours, they police can and should get it back for you.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Kymermosst]

There's actually a really simple reason for this:

Minor infractions do not require someone from the DA's office to prosecute the case. So the charge will stick and you have to pay or go to court.

Chances are that the police know that the DA will not pursue charges against whoever broke your car window due to lack of budget, because the DA will be prioritizing against cases that involve personal violence, social ills (drugs), or high-level/high-visibility crime. It's not worth the time of the police to do anything more than take a report because they know that the DA will not take the case.

By the way, where do you live that police budgets are still dependent on fine revenue? Some US states have resolved the "quota" issue by having fine revenue go directly to the general fund of the state, not to the local police department which are usually funded by local budgets and non-fine revenue.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[mwvdlee]

If the police have time to catch me speeding, they have time to figure out who threw a bearbottle through the rear window of my car.
Yet I get a few speeding tickets each year but they never even bothered to look at my car in person.
That is my perception, and my perception sees a problem with that.

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[Urkki]

I find it interesting that "people not doing their jobs" is a universal problem. That's something that has always bothered me. Unless it's somehow significant in the context of other things, people just aren't interested. I guess it's similar in extraterrestrial alien cultures, if there are any.

FTFY ;-)

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[pedrop357]

When can we count on that? The whole point being made by many here is that the police focus on victimless non-violent crimes and revenue generating crimes at the expense of minor crimes with actual victims.

They ignore breakins, minor theft, etc. but not a guy smoking a joint in his backyard or a person doing 5 over the limit.

So having your pet chipped is pointless then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't they shooting themselves in the foot? Why get your pet chipped if it doesn't help you get your pet back?

Frustrating

[Pojut]

I work in a pharmaceutical call center (I'm no longer on phones, since I now work in a technical position...but I started with answering phones.) People would get EXTREMELY frustrated with certain HIPAA regulations that would prevent us from providing them information regarding a family member because they hadn't been set as an "official contact".

HIPAA laws are well-intentioned, but often get in the way of patients (or their family members) getting the information they need. This malarky regarding the Data Protection Act and the guy's own dog seems to be a similar unfortunate situation.

Re:Frustrating

[Anonymous Coward]

Except when somebody doesn't want their family members learning about their medical history; then the HIPAA stuff can be quite helpful.

Re:Frustrating

[Improv]

Sometimes that well-intentioned-ness is really good. For example, I have not spoken with my father for over five years and would not want him to be treated any differently than some random person off the street in getting information or visiting should I ever become seriously ill. The doctors should not need to hear me explain that, and I would be livid if they used their "good judgement" to override the rules.

I don't care if my father (or anyone else) isn't getting information they think they "need". They can go stuff it.

dog gone it

[digitalsushi]

That's one dog gone sad story.

How exactly

[Crudely_Indecent]

did the dog get chipped in the first place?

I had my dog chipped, by a vet, after filling out paperwork authorizing it (and a check paying for it). If the paperwork is in the original owners name, how do the new owners have authority? How does the chip company even know about the new owners?

It makes me wonder if I got ripped off for the chip I paid for.

From the TFA, the original owner was asked by the chip company if they could update their records with the new owner information and the original owner refused. The police say their isn't a case and won't do anything further.

Re:actually even violent and significiant...

[gknoy]

Have you considered buying a keyboard with a working shift key? Capitalization would make your prose much easier to read.

Re:Due Process

[Mister Whirly]

And they rarely pass on the bad lawsuits either.