Unusual Situation

[rotrax]

While our 12 metre Island Packet Motorsailer was on its mooring at Dukes Wharf, Littlehampton, another vessel has hit the swim platform and caused perhaps 2K's worth of damage.

We were 100 miles away at home at the time, last Saturday. The boat has used Dukes Wharf as its permanent mooring for 5 years without issue, very secure, nice bertholders, sensible price.

As far as I can make out from limited information from three sources, a small - 6 or 7 metres - motor boat was behaving erratically in the harbour, moving downstream. This caught the attention of the HM's team in the Harbour rib, who followed the vessel and filmed it. Realising he was being observed, the helm of the small boat headed for the pontoon above where we are moored, in a 75 metre gap. He hit the pontoon, sheered off with the force of impact and hit our boat in the centre of the swim platform.

All pretty straightforward so far, witnesses from the Harbour rib, film, plus the dockside cctv wich is in operation 24/7. The guy in the small boat ended up in the water, his boat had to be quickly towed to the lifeboat slip as it was slowly sinking.

Trouble is, after rushing down to inspect the damage, the HM is quoting 'Data Protection' and not giving me details of the Third Party who caused the damage.

This, as you can imagine, is restricting my options. If I put it through my insurance, I will have to pay a substantial excess, plus lose my no claim bonus. My 'out of pocket' expenses could be 1K.

If the guy who hit me IS insured, his insurance should cover it, leaving me without substantial 'out of pocket' expenses.

Without the third party information, my options are limited. The Hamble HM's office tell me they give the information to the injured party in similar instances. I cannot understand why the Littlehampton HM wont do the same.

Anyone had similar or relevant experience who can advise?

 

[Mark-1]

In parallel with everything else you try, I'd be getting in touch with the local councillors on the Harbour board and their clerk:

https://www.littlehampton.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Board-Structure-20.02.23.pdf

 

[benjenbav]

I would suggest you discuss it with your insurers with a view to their covering the damage less excess and taking legal action to recover the excess from the third party.

Alternatively you go legal yourself - data disclosure can be compelled. But this will be expensive and, if not agreed in advance with your insurer, will result in their refusing your claim if, for whatever reason, you come up short against the third party.

 

[ylop]

This, as you can imagine, is restricting my options. If I put it through my insurance, I will have to pay a substantial excess, plus lose my no claim bonus. My 'out of pocket' expenses could be 1K.

If the guy who hit me IS insured, his insurance should cover it, leaving me without substantial 'out of pocket' expenses.

In your shoes I would provide all the information to your insurer (do you have marine legal cover, often an optional extra on the policy?). I would expect them to follow up with the HM etc. and will likely have more success. If you can identify any criminal offence then a conversation with the marine police team is probably likely to at least help get the information to passed to the insurer - cops are quite used to dealing with the "GDPR" argument for car park bumps.

Of course, if the other party was behaving as described there's a fair chance they are not insured. For £2k worth of damage anyone that can afford a boat, even a small run about that has been trashed, might be worth pursuing.

If you weren't keen to keep your boat there going forward then you could issue a claim against the HM and say if they hadn't been pursuing the boat and filming it, it would never have happened. I bet they find a way to disclose the other party's name then!

 

[footsoldier]

I read something about this sort of situation only yesterday - a car struck in a supermarket car park, I think - but annoyingly I cannot recall what publication it was in.

The advice given was that the supermarket - in your case the HM - is wrong to withhold the record - when an event occurs that involved loss/harm to your detriment, then the data becomes your data too and you have equal rights to that part of the video record. It was suggested that the Data Commissioner's office should point out the error of the HM's ways. Whether this is correct or not, I know not - but it is worth checking out.

 

[Plum]

While our 12 metre Island Packet Motorsailer was on its mooring at Dukes Wharf, Littlehampton, another vessel has hit the swim platform and caused perhaps 2K's worth of damage.

We were 100 miles away at home at the time, last Saturday. The boat has used Dukes Wharf as its permanent mooring for 5 years without issue, very secure, nice bertholders, sensible price.

As far as I can make out from limited information from three sources, a small - 6 or 7 metres - motor boat was behaving erratically in the harbour, moving downstream. This caught the attention of the HM's team in the Harbour rib, who followed the vessel and filmed it. Realising he was being observed, the helm of the small boat headed for the pontoon above where we are moored, in a 75 metre gap. He hit the pontoon, sheered off with the force of impact and hit our boat in the centre of the swim platform.

All pretty straightforward so far, witnesses from the Harbour rib, film, plus the dockside cctv wich is in operation 24/7. The guy in the small boat ended up in the water, his boat had to be quickly towed to the lifeboat slip as it was slowly sinking.

Trouble is, after rushing down to inspect the damage, the HM is quoting 'Data Protection' and not giving me details of the Third Party who caused the damage.

This, as you can imagine, is restricting my options. If I put it through my insurance, I will have to pay a substantial excess, plus lose my no claim bonus. My 'out of pocket' expenses could be 1K.

If the guy who hit me IS insured, his insurance should cover it, leaving me without substantial 'out of pocket' expenses.

Without the third party information, my options are limited. The Hamble HM's office tell me they give the information to the injured party in similar instances. I cannot understand why the Littlehampton HM wont do the same.

Anyone had similar or relevant experience who can advise?

As the motorboat helm caused damage to your property but not come forward to give you their details I would report to the police (maybe your local marine police unit) and get a crime number to give to your insurer and let them followup.

 

[rotrax]

Options there chaps, thank you.

I'll give the HM time to get back to me-noon tomorrow- before getting something done.

Appreciate your advice. Been boating since 1972, never had an insurance issue.

 

[Irish Rover]

Maybe the guy who damaged your boat is looking for your details as well. I'd send an email to the HM asking him to pass on your details to the other party. Maybe a waste of time but it shouldn't take more than a couple of minutes.

 

[Chiara’s slave]

Maybe the guy who damaged your boat is looking for your details as well. I'd send an email to the HM asking him to pass on your details to the other party. Maybe a waste of time but it shouldn't take more than a couple of minutes.

That would put Rotrax firmly on the side of the angels. Got to be worth it, the other side can then be shown to be in the wrong on all counts. I too think the HM is wrong, but no point in just arguing about it.

 

[KevinV]

The Hamble HM's office tell me they give the information to the injured party in similar instances. I cannot understand why the Littlehampton HM wont do the same.

Is it worth a gentle "I think you may be mistaken in your application of GDPR legislation - perhaps a chat with your colleagues in the Hamble, or the Police, or the Information Commissioner's Office would be worthwhile?"?

I'm a great believer in "Speak softly but imply a big stick"

 

[ylop]

Maybe the guy who damaged your boat is looking for your details as well. I'd send an email to the HM asking him to pass on your details to the other party. Maybe a waste of time but it shouldn't take more than a couple of minutes.

Whilst presumably the other party is not really sitting there wondering “how can I get a message to this guy” (because it doesn’t take a genius to come up with attaching a note to your boat, asking the HM to pass on your details, etc) your suggestion is quite a good one in that it removes the immediate GDPR excuse.

Here’s what the ICO say’s What should we do if the request involves information about other individuals? which would be worth reading through and making sure you’ve made a formal request.

I would make sure that you formally request the HM to preserve / keep copies of all evidence, including videos, and audio recordings of calls / VHF etc. often these things are wiped/overwritten after 30 days (in some cases less) and the OP wouldn’t be the first person to fall foul of the “oh if only we’d had the right request last week”.

Of course to the “victim” these things always feel super urgent and like nothing is happening- it is possible that the other party called his insurer who are now writing a letter by second class post, via the harbour master to for them to share details/pass on to you.

Has the boat been recovered / removed? Another option would be for you to attach a message to it requesting the owner to contact you.

 

[Biggles Wader]

Apart from the data protection nonsense it must be the case that the HM and possibly others witnessed the event and can be asked to make statements as to what happened and who did it. The HM can't really duck out of that one>

 

[doug748]

"I would make sure that you formally request the HM to preserve / keep copies of all evidence, including videos, and audio recordings of calls / VHF etc. often these things are wiped/overwritten after 30 days (in some cases less) and the OP wouldn’t be the first person to fall foul of the “oh if only we’d had the right request last week”.

I think this is good advice, tell them you think they are wrong, as Kevin has suggested and ask them to make a formal record of the events of the day including the names of any witnesses . Tell them you are in touch with your insurance company and have contacted the police. Do this in writing and send it first class post, recorded delivery.

.

 

[Seastoke]

Also ask around the marina who’s boat it is , I would imagine the hm will be charging for salvaging the boat as well .

 

[Puffin10032]

Don't take this as actual legal advice. It comes from ChatGPT

"Under Article 6(1)(f) of the UK GDPR, processing (including disclosing) personal data is lawful if it is necessary for the purposes of legitimate interests, provided those interests are not overridden by the data subject's (Person B's) rights and freedoms.

In this case, Person A has a legitimate interest in obtaining Person B’s contact details to seek compensation or pursue legal action for the damage caused.

This type of situation is often considered a “dispute resolution” context, where sharing of personal data can be justified."

Here's a link to the ICO web site talking about 6(1)(f)

What is the ‘legitimate interests’ basis?

I think the harbour master is wrong.

 

[Tranona]

Options there chaps, thank you.

I'll give the HM time to get back to me-noon tomorrow- before getting something done.

Appreciate your advice. Been boating since 1972, never had an insurance issue.

Check your policy and you may well find that a claim for damage when moored in your permanent mooring is not subject to excess or loss of NCD.

Definitely first thing to do is call your insurer and ask for advice.

 

[rotrax]

"I would make sure that you formally request the HM to preserve / keep copies of all evidence, including videos, and audio recordings of calls / VHF etc. often these things are wiped/overwritten after 30 days (in some cases less) and the OP wouldn’t be the first person to fall foul of the “oh if only we’d had the right request last week”.

I think this is good advice, tell them you think they are wrong, as Kevin has suggested and ask them to make a formal record of the events of the day including the names of any witnesses . Tell them you are in touch with your insurance company and have contacted the police. Do this in writing and send it first class post, recorded delivery.

.

No problem there, the only problem they have appears to be sharing the extensive information, video, witness statements with me.

After the advice from you guys, that is about to change.

 

[rotrax]

Is it worth a gentle "I think you may be mistaken in your application of GDPR legislation - perhaps a chat with your colleagues in the Hamble, or the Police, or the Information Commissioner's Office would be worthwhile?"?

I'm a great believer in "Speak softly but imply a big stick"

I business I found the same.

A spoonful of sugar was worth a ton of vinegar...................

 

[Mister E]

Best
of luck getting this sorted.

 

[lustyd]

The advice given was that the supermarket - in your case the HM - is wrong to withhold the record - when an event occurs that involved loss/harm to your detriment, then the data becomes your data too and you have equal rights to that part of the video record

It’s not wrong it’s in line with the law.

Is it worth a gentle "I think you may be mistaken in your application of GDPR legislation

They are not.

Don't take this as actual legal advice. It comes from ChatGPT

"Under Article 6(1)(f) of the UK GDPR, processing (including disclosing) personal data is lawful if it is necessary for the purposes of legitimate interests, provided those interests are not overridden by the data subject's (Person B's) rights and freedoms.

In this case, Person A has a legitimate interest in obtaining Person B’s contact details to seek compensation or pursue legal action for the damage caused.

This type of situation is often considered a “dispute resolution” context, where sharing of personal data can be justified."

Here's a link to the ICO web site talking about 6(1)(f)

What is the ‘legitimate interests’ basis?

I think the harbour master is wrong.

Legitimate interest doesn’t cover this situation at all. Legitimate interest is when a company requires data to carry out the service they provide, essentially this is when it’s obvious the data is required.

In this situation, there are organisations such as police and courts who can request the data legitimately as part of proceedings. The individual under no circumstances needs the data because they are neither investigating nor prosecuting. The insurance company will investigate, possibly alongside police and may then start court proceedings on your behalf. This thread is essentially asking for permission to become a vigilante (in a loose sense) and it’s good that the law prevents that and that the marina are complying with the law.