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?

[operagost]

An in-law of mine did TIME for receiving stolen property... and no, she didn't even know it was stolen. Obviously, we don't really want to prosecute the new owners, but the fact is that a crime was committed, and the police are ignoring a lead to the criminals. How does this mouthbreathing judge expect the man to file a civil case when he can't get the company to divulge the whereabouts of the dog?

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[omnichad]

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.

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

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?

[b0bby]

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?

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[gandhi_2]

Ahh, so he has to fill out the Data Protection Act Stolen Dog Exemption Request form, stand in queue at the local magistrate's office.

Then upon 7 fortnights, if the request is granted, he must then fill out the Data Protection Act Stolen Dog Information Request form, again in a queue this time at the Council offices.

Should this form be approved, following a 600 pound sterling filing fee, then he can go on to contract a Solicitor. The Solicitor files a Data Protection Act Stolen Dog Action form with the local Constable....

If the Constable finds wrong doing, the Constable then files a Data Protection Act Stolen Dog Investigation and the Solicitor can have a Barrister take all the above forms, signed in triplicate to stand in queue at the local magistrates office....

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?

[erikvcl]

I find it interesting that "police not doing their jobs" is a universal problem. That's something that has always bothered me. Unless it's a violent or significant crime, the police just aren't interested. I guess it's similar in the UK (I'm in the US).

Re:So they can just keep stolen property then?

[bws111]

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.

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?

[bws111]

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.’"

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?

[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?

[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.

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?

dog gone it

[digitalsushi]

That's one dog gone sad story.

Company may be perfectly right

[AbbeyRoad]

The company is perfectly right. The judge only refused because the guy asked the wrong judge. This is explained in the article.

The company also is being entirely cooperative and "would encourage Mr Moorhouse to go to a solicitor and start a civil case".

Through a civil case he would be able to get a court order. I don't even think he would need a lawyer for this.

This law is in line with good civil rights: it's the same law that prevents Google from disclosing info about your searches.

Re:Frustrating

[dsoltesz]

Gossipy, nosy, lecturing family members... I don't even want them knowing my latest blood pressure reading. All I need is my mother saying "Should you be putting butter on your potato? Your cholesterol levels are a bit high." And. Yeah. I don't want her to know about the damned gerbil.

Moral of the story...

[Assmasher]

...always get a Power of Attorney from your dog.