Dog-owner prevented from finding microchipped pet under Data Protection Act
47 replies, posted
[img_thumb]http://www.arenaflowers.com/files/Image/arenaflowers.com/news/telegraph_co_uk.jpeg[/img_thumb]
[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/pets/8015956/Dog-owner-prevented-from-finding-microchipped-pet-under-Data-Protection-Act.html]Source[/url]
[release]Dave Moorhouse's Jack Russell terrier, Rocky, was stolen in 2007 and he was informed earlier this year that the microchip provider had discovered details of his dog's new address.
However, they refused to pass on the animal's whereabouts claiming it would breach the Data Protection Act.
Last week a court refused Mr Moorhouse's request for a court order compelling Anibase, the microchipping database, to reveal the name and address of the new owners.
Mr Moorhouse, 56, from Huddersfield, West Yorks, said: "What’s the point of having your pet microchipped if you can’t get him back?"
The dog went missing in January 2007 from his home.
Mr Moorhouse, a self-employed bricklayer, said: “I secured him on his lead in the backyard and went to Leeds. When I came back Rocky was missing and I presume he was stolen because someone would have had to have let him off his lead.”
He added: “All that next week I was in the nearby woods in looking for him.
“I put an ad in the local paper and I reported his theft to the vets where Rocky had been microchipped.”
Three years later, in April 2010, Mr Moorhouse received a letter from Anibase asking if he wanted them to update their database with the name and address of the dog’s new owners.
It is believed they had requested that their details be added onto the database.
Mr Moorhouse said: “I told Anibase that I didn’t want to transfer ownership because my dog had been stolen.
“I asked them for the name and address of the people who had my dog but they wouldn’t give me the details.”
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.
Steven Wildridge, managing director of Animalcare, the company that runs Anibase, 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."
He added: "This is a common problem that can occur if a dog is involved in a marital dispute or it is lost or stolen. We encourage people to sort things out amongst themselves but if they refuse there is not much we can do. We would encourage Mr Moorhouse to go to a solicitor and start a civil case."
In January this year the Kennel Club recommended to Defra that all puppies are microchipped before being sold on.
The average cost of implanting a microchip is £25-30 although vets charges do vary.
Caroline Kisko, Secretary of the Kennel Club, said: “Microchipping is a method of permanent identification and does not provide proof of ownership. If somebody’s dog has been stolen and an ownership dispute arises then this needs to be reported to the police, who can demand that details of the dog’s location be disclosed, where appropriate."
[/release]
The dog was FUCKING STOLEN
Fuck sakes.
Wow if that was my dog I'd be going into that chip place with a shotgun and bottle of beer and I wouldn't leave until A) Everyone is dead or B) I get my fucking dog back. Theft is theft, no matter how big or how small, it's still stealing, and as such is a criminal offense and is very well within the police officers jurisdiction.
Fuckind dumb laws. When will people learn that laws do not have logical reasoning in all cases.
Thats balls.
UK and your silly protection laws while there are CCTV's everywhere.
Dookie. Sucks for him that he fell for some piece of shit scam company.
[QUOTE=Jurikuer;24999849]Wow if that was my dog I'd be going into that chip place with a shotgun and bottle of beer and I wouldn't leave until A) Everyone is dead or B) I get my fucking dog back. Theft is theft, no matter how big or how small, it's still stealing, and as such is a criminal offense and is very well within the police officers jurisdiction.[/QUOTE]
Someone has my dog?
MA, GRAB MAH SHOTGUN!
Data protection act, fair enough. Police not doing anything when you are the original owner that had it chipped and you clearly state you don't want to transfer ownership is the big fuck up.
and this is where i would grab a gun and go nuts!
So the guy's getting away with theft? Lovely.
For fuck's sake Britain, when will you take your heads out of your asses and see that this system doesn't work?!
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;25000928]So the guy's getting away with theft? Lovely.
For fuck's sake Britain, when will you take your heads out of your asses and see that this system doesn't work?![/QUOTE]
what system?
[QUOTE=BAZ;25000969]what system?[/QUOTE]
Any system, but the justice system in particular. Especially when used in conjunction with the 'HURF DURF PROTECT CRIMINALS HURF DURF' bullshit.
Good. Too bad about his dog but some data is personal for a reason. I wouldn't want to sacrifice my integrity to some dog.
[QUOTE=demoguy08;25001097]Good. Too bad about his dog but some data is personal for a reason. I wouldn't want to sacrifice my integrity to some dog.[/QUOTE]
So you would be perfectly fine with getting your shit stolen and getting told 'yeah, we know who it is but we won't tell you'?
The thing is, the Police and the veterinarian that implanted the chip are probably in a bit of a bind. If the dog was stolen in 2007, that means it's been living with the other family for three years. It'd be just as wrong to take the dog away from the newer family then it would be to let it keep it.
Besides, for all we know, the dog was stolen and then sold/given away. The new family might not even know it was stolen. It is still fucked up that the Police didn't atleast put him into contact with the new family.
[QUOTE=Gordy H.;25001137]The thing is, the Police and the veterinarian that implanted the chip are probably in a bit of a bind. If the dog was stolen in 2007, that means it's been living with the other family for three years. It'd be just as wrong to take the dog away from the newer family then it would be to let it keep it.[/quote]
I don't see what that has to do with anything, at all. It's like stealing a car from somebody and when the police find it, they won't give it back since he's had the car for so long it would be wrong to take it away.
[quote]Besides, for all we know, the dog was stolen and then sold/given away. The new family might not even know it was stolen. [/QUOTE]
Again, what does this have to do with anything? So what if the thief sold it, the dog is rightfully his!
[QUOTE=demoguy08;25001097]Good. Too bad about his dog but some data is personal for a reason. I wouldn't want to sacrifice my integrity to some dog.[/QUOTE]
What if your dog got stolen?
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;25001216]I don't see what that has to do with anything, at all. It's like stealing a car from somebody and when the police find it, they won't give it back since he's had the car for so long it would be wrong to take it away.
Again, what does this have to do with anything? So what if he's sold it, the dog is rightfully his![/QUOTE]
I realize that legally the dog is his. However, imagine that you buy a dog. You bond with it over three years, then out of the blue you find out that the dog was stolen and you're forced to give it back.
No matter what the Police do, one of the parties is going to be very upset, so it's understandable that they didn't just [u]give him[/u] the dogs location.
[QUOTE=Gordy H.;25001297]I realize that legally the dog is his. However, imagine that you buy a dog. You bond with it over three years, then out of the blue you find out that the dog was stolen and you're forced to give it back.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I wouldn't like it. But do you realize how selfish it would be to demand to keep the dog?
'I don't care if somebody stole the dog from that guy, I bought him, he's mine'.
Well, in Finland, the one from who something (or someone in this case) was stolen must pay the one who bought it from the thief the amount s/he bought it for if the thief can't pay it back, if I remember correctly.
The dog should be returned to the owner. No matter if someone bought it or what.
[editline]06:00PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=imadaman;25001465]Well, in Finland, the one from who something (or someone in this case) was stolen must pay the one who bought it from the thief the amount s/he bought it for if the thief can't pay it back, if I remember correctly.[/QUOTE]
So the victim must pay the buyer?
If the thief can't pay it back, [u]if I remember correctly[/u].
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;25000105]Someone has my dog?
MA, GRAB MAH SHOTGUN![/QUOTE]
I'm sorry, I love my pets. Maybe you can let them go to some asshole who stole them, but I can't. I'd be outright pissed and sure as hell wouldn't take no for an answer.
If the dog was stolen, and he reported it stolen and can prove it is his he should get it back.
It's stupid if he doesn't.
Fuck privacy, fuck the law, fuck the data protection act.
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;25000105]Someone has my dog?
MA, GRAB MAH SHOTGUN![/QUOTE]
He's exaggerating, obviously he wouldn't actually do it. Don't tell me that you wouldn't be pissed off and making exagerations if this happened to you.
Goddamn everyone's so overly politically correct in this section.
Convert the microchip to, okay no.
This is stupid, it's his dog, was stolen, give him the fuck back. And no, if he has to pay, Britain has crossed the retard line. Again, for only the billionth time.
Of course everyone comes in and blames the UK legal system for "Protecting criminals".
The best way to resolve this would be for the authorities to contact the new owners and organise the two families to meet up and discuss the situation.
[editline]06:42PM[/editline]
Also, it had the microchip, it was stolen in 2007, what took them so long to find it?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.