MCA sells ships registry to all comers!

F

ffiill

Well-Known Member
Joined
5 Sep 2007
Messages
3,283
Visit site
Is your boat on the small ships/part 1 register-have you recently recieved unsolicited letter from Insurance Broker or similar with your boats name on it?

This is because the MCA has sold registry details without permission and probably in breach of data protection leglislation.

I certainly never gave them my consent to place my name and address and boat details in the public domain!
Phil
 
Me too, I did not realise it was MCA but it must have been as it had the yacht's name on the paperwork and can't think of any other business that would know that?
 
It was someone on another site I subscribe to who contacted insurance broker and asked as to where had they got the information-reply the MCA
Phil
 
I'm another, but the way Bishop Skinner dealt with recent claims has left me reluctant to change.

So if this is illegal how to stir?

But as SWMBO just opined, you didn't complain when local councils sold off their electoral rolls . . .
Ouch!
 
Yup, me too, I wondered how they got the info but didn't bother to ask. I just put it in the furnace with all the other "offers" & credit card cheques. I might as well get some free heat off the rubbish.

So, what are we all going to do about it? Be much better if we all do the same thing. Might scare the pants off them, joined up thinking from customers.
 
I recently resigned from part of the MCA as I was not confident of their ability to keep my personal details secure and private. The fact that they only recently sent me CRB documents to fill in made me feel somewhat justified...Now this! what a joke.
 
On principle I wouldn't check it even. Hyde Sails is another PITA that got my email from somewhere and Reeds (which I never buy nor will) the biggest PITA of all because they send multiple emails to my business address as well as my personal one.
 
I wrote to the brokers concerned - they monitor this forum by the way but did not have the courtesy to respond to the earlier thread. They state "We purchased databases from various sources and your entry was located on a element from the MCA/SSR records". TG is part one registered.

The Brokers have done nothing wrong although you would have thought they would have commented on the previous thread given the obvious concern of people here - they even asked me to correct a posting by another forumit! Why they didn't do it themselves is beyond me. But I am writing to the MCA copied to the Information Registrar to enquire on what basis they made my home address commercially available. I have yet to decide to which newspaper to copy my letter!
 
Perhaps we should start off with the RYA .. I always thought that you had to tick a box on a form somewhere to allow your data to be used .. Perhaps YBW should write a piece .. After all it will effect all their readers ..
 
Sorry to be pessimistic but I can't imagine the RYA would be bothered to even consider getting involved.
 
I originally posted about this about a week ago. See under "Data Protection".
When I got the letter, I emailed Traffords and asked where they had got the information, and they confirmed that it was the MCA. I have written to the MCA with no response as yet. I have also written to the Data Protection Agency with the same result. I have also run it past someone on the Cruising Committee of the RYA, who said that he would enquire further.

Nowadays we are told to be careful with our personal details, and I think it is entirely wrong that the MCA should be selling information about us to third parties. Considering that most of us have completed a CG66, and that therefore the MCA has lots of information about us, what I asked was, what other information have they been selling, and to whom?
 
Having never heard of Traffords my reaction was that this was some sort of scam.

It now transpires that the MCA are charging me to take my details and then rather than taking care to look after my personal information have sold it to a third party!

Someone's ears will be burning when I speak to the little b***s on Monday morning.
 
As a neighbourhood watch co-ordinator and undergoing security checks, I asked the number of the house in the long road I live in, that had had a burglary - I was refused the information with the plea 'Data protection'. I resigned saying I was not prepared to play silly Bs; but where D P is neccesary where is it?
 
You can opt out of receiving a lot of the junk. It does seem to rely on individual posties taking note of the list for their round and not all of them seem to bother, particularly if they are new to the round.
 
I think its wrong to sell info, but thats the modern would today. A lot of junk mail requires postage stamps, so send it back without a stamp, in the MCA position I would write a letter to my MP. Dont think anybody would like queires from Mp`s, just a thought.
 
The MCA is a Govt Body. As such they are bound by the DPA1998, including Sch 11-13 & the Freedom of Information Act.

If they have released our personal details from SSR or Part 1 Register without our consent, then we can approach the Information Commissioner about the MCA's "apparent " breach of the DPA, or their failure to provide a(prominently placed) opt out in their Registration documentation.

We can also make a written (e-mail counts)FOI request to the MCA, which they must respond to within 20 days following the date of receipt. If/When they do not meet the deadline, there is an established chain of appeal right up to the Lords, via the Information Commissioner.

The FOI request can ask
1) Have they sold/released the data.
2) to which bodies/coys, etc.
2) Where is the legislation/ consent of the persons registered on Pt1/SSR authorising them to sell data provided for the purposes of the MCA/Govt to the private sector.
3)What mechanisms exist within the MCA's record systems to enable persons to ensure DPA1998 Sch11-13 is applied to their personal data.
4) Has the MCA considered the personal security implications for their "customers" of releasing "customers"wealth/ location/likely absence related information into the public domain?

Following that, we can follow up with supplementary questions as nessecary from the reply.

Looks like another case of the Transferrable Competancies Civil Service Manager, or just as bad, imported Private sector Spiv.

It seems we are overdue for the 21st equivalent of the Northcote-Trevelyan reforms of the Public Services Ethics/ Morality. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top