Insurance

[ccscott49]

Do you remember a post sometime ago, where I said I dont lock the boat up, because of the damage caused when somebody breaks in? Well I've just had a letter from Pataneius, telling me they read my post and reminding me of the fact that my insurance is void for theft, if I didn't lock the boat! Well, for Pantaneius and anybody else interested, Englander will be locked up tighter than a drum in future and I would advise anybody else to do the same, but if everything is nicked by pirates, when at sea, am I not covered? as the boat wont be locked or is that a different clause? One other thing, I'll be very careful what I say on here in future.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[sailbadthesinner]

Re: Bloody \'ell

you are serious eh?
so someone has checked out profile and checked englander against named policies. at least they had the decency to tell you they could have just waited for a claim and then refused unless you could show damage of forced entry.

welcome back by the way.

<hr width=100% size=1><font color=red>Ok brain let's just do this and I can get back to killing you with beer.</font color=red>

 

[claymore]

On the other hand

I cannot speak too highly of Pantaenius. They have always given me excellent and rapid service and I have absolutely no complaints and have said this a number of times on the fora. I wonder if they've read them and are, as we speak, working out some extra form of loyalty and good publicity discount?

<hr width=100% size=1>regards
Claymore
/forums/images/icons/smile.gif

 

[Steve_D]

Data Protection issues?

Without looking at the relevant legislation I'm not absolutelu sure but...

I think there may be data protection and/or ECHR issues here.

Your details are stored on the system for the purposes of being a member of a chat group, By taking your details and cross checking with their own systems they may be in breach of data protection legislation, unless ybw.com have registered with the Registrar for purposes other than chatting and maybe market research for e.g.

without prejedice FWIW IMHO and YMMV, of course

Regards

Steve D

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[wakeup]

Data Protection Act

Colin Welcome back and I hope the ribs are now upto the latest goings on here.

Steve D is right, would be worth checking this with the DP Registrar, I know that they are a litigious organisation and would easilly find in your favour and heavilly fine 'Pants r us' if they have over stepped the mark.

see <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.dpr.gov.uk>http://www.dpr.gov.uk</A>

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[kimhollamby]

Re: Data Protection issues?

The only data that is available to people outside of IPC from anything captured on the forums is that which is seen publicly ie username and any profile information. We do not currently solicit your permission to use forum registrants data for external or internal marketing purposes or external export and therefore we cannot. Period.

I don't know what the legal position is regarding someone cross-checking published information against their own company records but I can assure you that we have not released any data.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[tcm]

Re: Data Protection issues?

yes, i don't see any problem.

as far as i know, a DProt ish would arise against an insurer if they used detail released to them for the purposes of insurance - for other purposes such as erm selling all those with wooden huled boats to the wodden boat magazine sellers.

But they are surely within their rigthts to wander arond the pontoons, watch the tv, read the internet for publicly available info relating to the stuff they insure. It's publcily available info innit?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Tradewinds]

Re:Loyalty Discount

Don't think so.

My renewal premium notification arrived from Pantaenius today - it has just gone up by 39% (I've used them for 10yrs+).

Agree with your general views about them, but maybe things have changed for the worse - I hope not, despite lots of recent evidence to the contrary.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[claymore]

Re:Loyalty Discount

Well - if anyone is reading this who has a hand on the tiller of discount - Tradewinds and Claymore still think you are great.

<hr width=100% size=1>regards
Claymore
/forums/images/icons/smile.gif

 

[Steve_D]

Re: Data Protection issues?

I think you may well be right, as I said I'm not sure but it did ring a few alarm bells. At the end of the day the profile information is held on a computer for the purposes of running a chat forum, so that we might get to know some of the background of our fellow forumers (?). Its not there to be used as a stick to beat you with (metaphorically obviously)

I ran it passed my boss in outline, he deals with data protection issues, and he felt that at best it did not comply with the spirit of the legislation.

For example at work we have problems with identifying people that we hold data on. In the UK this is usually done using full name and date of birth. There is not enough data held on the profile to uniquely identify the forum users IMHO. It is not neccessary for the purposes of running a forum and therefore is within the law.

To then use that incomplete data to identify someone on a database is dodgy, what if they got the wrong boat or person they could then withdraw insurance from an innocent client for no good reason and I suspect would find themselves on very thin ice. Some of the unique identifiers may be acceptable (MMSI or whatever its called) but unless you identify yourself when applying for it in person using a passport or similar form of ID, well we would not accept it!


Kim;
There was no intention on my part to imply that you or the proprietors were doing anything untoward with the data held. I was simply pointing out that any use that personal data is put to must be registered with the data registrar and, usually, these must be reasonable uses for that data and it must be comensurate with its purpose, i.e. having my DNA profile on the forum profile would be a bit over the top for running a forum. I would venture that the information held on the profiles is sufficient for purpose and no more or less. This is as it should be.

again

IMHO FWIW and YMMV etc

Regards

Steve D

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Observer]

Re: Data Protection issues?

However, the data in the "profile" section is not "required" in order to facilitate the forum. It is volunteered by users so I'm not sure that the DPA is applicable.

In the case at point, the insurer acted reasonably and honestly in warning the insured that he was in breach of his insurance contract. If they had waited to see if a cliam was made and then refused it on the gorunds of the breach they were aware of, that would be sharp practice (but probably nothing more).

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Steve_D]

Re: Data Protection issues?

Good point

As I say I'm not an expert in the field I just work on the periphery (?) it just didn't smell right to me

regards

steve d

<hr width=100% size=1><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by Steve_D on 28/02/2003 09:28 (server time).</FONT></P>

 

[kimhollamby]

No problem

Wasn't thinking that was the thrust of your comment but always useful to take opportunities such as these to reinforce the rigidity of our policies; we spend hours on DPA compliance and good to crow about it once in a while -- only reason for post.

<hr width=100% size=1>