Unusual Situation

[Cerebus]

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

They are not.

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.

The op does not strike me or offered anything to suggest he is a vigilante.

He would like to contact the person that damaged his property and left no note.

He would not like to involve his insurance company incase it increases his premiums etc even though he is blamesless.

That is the way I understand it.

There is a wrong do-er and an innocent party, but the innocent party seems to be having the most difficulty.

And I read today that Great Britain is the most monitored and has the most CCTV than any other nation (I found this strange and don’t undetstand it).

And then there are rules that protect criminals? Is that correct?

 

[lustyd]

The op does not strike me or offered anything to suggest he is a vigilante.

He would like to contact the person that damaged his property and left no note.

These two sentences don’t belong together.

 

[Cerebus]

These two sentences don’t belong together.

Too cryptic for me to understand.

Care to elaborate?

Not to worry if you wish it to remain cryptic… but if so, why write in a public forum ?

You stated:
“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.”

The word “company” seems key.

Did you provide a source for the statement regarding legitimate interest?

I don’t wish to sound confrontational, but I have always fought for the underdog or the innocent.

 

[Mark-1]

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

I reckon you might be right.

If someone reverses into me in Tescos car park I'm pretty sure Tescos wouldn't give me the car reg.

It's far from authoritative but:

https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/comments/1cdrw19/someone_hit_my_car_while_i_was_shopping_but

I think the OP is going to be the loser here. The insurer won't bother investigating, it's cheaper for them to have the OP claim and then load his premium.

Hope my hunch is wrong on all counts.

 

[Cerebus]

I reckon you might be right.

If someone reverses into me in Tescos car park I'm pretty sure Tescos wouldn't give me the car reg.

It's far from authoritative but:

https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/comments/1cdrw19/someone_hit_my_car_while_i_was_shopping_but

I think the OP is going to be the loser here. The insurer won't bother investigating, it's cheaper for them to have the OP claim and then load his premium.

Hope my hunch is wrong on all counts.

Is the law correct, right and just? Big question.

Supermarkets do allow you to ask for cctv footage. Whether they give it to you is at their discretion, however.

This correlates with anything in a privately run harbour I suppose. “Privately”.

Does it sound fair? But when does that matter in this day and age (he wrote cynically).

 

[ylop]

Lustyd, I think your choice of the word vigilante is a misrepresentation. You are partly right that the Data Controller (the HM) is right to not to immediately disclose the information to anyone who asks but the ICO seems to come to a different conclusion on when information can be provided to third parties (see link I posted earlier). There is no requirement to get a court order and whilst the police may help, it’s not absolutely clear there was reason to suspect a crime. The insurer, or a lawyer may get a faster answer or word the request better, or by making undertakings not to share certain data with the OP, but the HM is not 100% blocked from giving details direct to the OP where they think it’s reasonable but the ICO expects them to try to get the other party’s agreement first; and if for example in reply they said “here’s my insurers details please pass them on” that would probably be a reason not to provide the name and address in the first instance. They have a month to review the request, get their own professional advice and then respond.

 

[doug748]

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.

Good, I hope it works out.

The guff in the letter is not really the point of it, the point is that they get an unusual letter that has to be signed for, it sharpens the mind. I would always put in a couple of cc's in the heading, as well as an outline of the proceedings which sets down a marker. It also conveys that you are no mug and the matter is not going to go away untested.

.

 

[ylop]

Good, I hope it works out.

The guff in the letter is not really the point of it, the point is that they get an unusual letter that has to be signed for, it sharpens the mind. I would always put in a couple of cc's in the heading, as well as an outline of the proceedings which sets down a marker. It also conveys that you are no mug and the matter is not going to go away untested.

.

Although if you are winging it, and they pass to their “legal department” for advice (which is quite likely if they are unsure about their GDPR options) they’ll see through you.

 

[Mark-1]

Although if you are winging it, and they pass to their “legal department” for advice (which is quite likely if they are unsure about their GDPR options) they’ll see through you.

Littlehampton Harbour is two blokes in a speedboat, a committee of volunteer local councillors, and a part-time admin clerk. I don't know how well-educated the cat is, but unless he's a feline John Mortimer, they don't have a legal department.

 

[ylop]

Littlehampton Harbour is two blokes in a speedboat, a committee of volunteer local councillors, and a part-time admin clerk. I don't know how well-educated the cat is, but unless he's a feline John Mortimer, they don't have a legal department.

No but they will almost certainly have a legal firm, possibly on retainer, for dealing with GDPR and other issues that crop up - or one of the trustees or their respective councils is providing them input on the legalities. Their annual report says they spend 9% of expenditure on legal and professional costs.

 

[Chiara’s slave]

Lustyd, I think your choice of the word vigilante is a misrepresentation. You are partly right that the Data Controller (the HM) is right to not to immediately disclose the information to anyone who asks but the ICO seems to come to a different conclusion on when information can be provided to third parties (see link I posted earlier). There is no requirement to get a court order and whilst the police may help, it’s not absolutely clear there was reason to suspect a crime. The insurer, or a lawyer may get a faster answer or word the request better, or by making undertakings not to share certain data with the OP, but the HM is not 100% blocked from giving details direct to the OP where they think it’s reasonable but the ICO expects them to try to get the other party’s agreement first; and if for example in reply they said “here’s my insurers details please pass them on” that would probably be a reason not to provide the name and address in the first instance. They have a month to review the request, get their own professional advice and then respond.

The crime might be criminal damage.

 

[lustyd]

The word “company” seems key

The GDPR uses “legal person” and “natural person”. I said company as it’s easier to understand for forumites.

I don’t wish to sound confrontational, but I have always fought for the underdog or the innocent

As does the GDPR, purposefully so. In this case the underdog is the person who was being filmed as far as privacy is concerned. The OP can get redress quite easily but not by personally hunting down the person who did the damage.

Lustyd, I think your choice of the word vigilante is a misrepresentation

It’s a strong sounding word but I think it fits the intent of finding the criminal and dealing with them personally rather than following well established and legal routes to redress. I do understand the reasoning in the OP but unfortunately that’s not how our system is set up. the question was about data privacy and the law, and in this case the marina were correct.

 

[doug748]

Although if you are winging it, and they pass to their “legal department” for advice (which is quite likely if they are unsure about their GDPR options) they’ll see through you.

I believe there is nothing to see through, it's just one step in the game.

It has to be delivered flat no place for threats hyperbole, pleas or exaggeration; though you can drop in a couple of nice ones eg:

" I understand the damage was caused in the course of some sort of pursuit"

.

 

[ylop]

The crime might be criminal damage.

The requisite mens rea is likely missing: i.e. he didn’t set out to cause damage or couldn’t care if he did so. I’m sure there’s more likely to be some merchant shipping or harbour act offence but if the OP gets the cops on his side they may be willing to investigate “suspicion” of criminal damage.

 

[ylop]

I believe there is nothing to see through, it's just one step in the game.

As soon as you call it a game - you’ve got something to see through! But in your earlier post you wrote:

“The guff in the letter is not really the point of it”

“an outline of the proceedings which sets down a marker.”

Guff is exactly what the lawyer will see through. There are no proceedings, the OP doesn’t have the details of who to bring court proceedings against which kind of is the point!

It has to be delivered flat no place for threats hyperbole, pleas or exaggeration; though you can drop in a couple of nice ones eg:

" I understand the damage was caused in the course of some sort of pursuit"

.

What he definitely shouldn’t do is exaggerate or make stuff up, which is exactly what your bit in italics is.

always remember that the OP actually wants to remain on positive and constructive terms with the HM, not just to solve this issue but because he keeps his boat there and wants to keep doing so.

 

[doug748]

As soon as you call it a game - you’ve got something to see through! But in your earlier post you wrote:

“The guff in the letter is not really the point of it”

“an outline of the proceedings which sets down a marker.”

Guff is exactly what the lawyer will see through. There are no proceedings, the OP doesn’t have the details of who to bring court proceedings against which kind of is the point!


What he definitely shouldn’t do is exaggerate or make stuff up, which is exactly what your bit in italics is.

always remember that the OP actually wants to remain on positive and constructive terms with the HM, not just to solve this issue but because he keeps his boat there and wants to keep doing so.

Well it's a point of view.

I think you need a lie down.

.

 

[rotrax]

The crime might be criminal damage.

The police-I have obtained an incident report number-suggest that it is only Criminal Damage if it is clear it was done on purpose, IE, not an accident. AFAIK, all witnesses suspect drink or drugs were the cause, but difficult to prove.

 

[Blueboatman]

Thinking about this a bit.

May I suggest that the only person who might be inclined to anything rather than hoping it will just go away, is the OP.

Would it be worth working the phones for an hour and ringing round a couple of loss adjusters?
For the briefest preliminaries kind of chat?
They above all must have real life experience of this sort of awkward logjam.

By all means write to the HM in the very first instance as Doug hss suggested , get it on paper , summarising the facts and requesting the information/evidence in order to support your claim to your insurers.

And thirdly, where is the motor vessel now? Is it in a compound ?

Horrid when this sort of thing happens and the taxing time for the OP to put the effort in when he just wants to get back to where he was. Good luck

 

[Mark-1]

May I suggest that the only person who might be inclined to anything rather than hoping it will just go away, is the OP.

 
That's my take. Insurers don't do investigations for small claims, it's cheaper to simply pay out than chase.

The Harbour master.... Frankly I'm suprised they aren't more helpful, but since they're not I really don't see why they'd expend any energy on this at all.

Sadly the only one who cares here is the OP. (And us.)

 

[nevis768]

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?

The HM is wrong and is obliged to supply you the details of the other party. The ICO is are very helpful on the phone if you need to ring them. Also, the data protection legislation doesn't apply to criminal enquiries, or pursuit off offenders, but I also think you are entitled to the harbour masters evidence anyway because your boat is in the video.
The sort of boat handling you have described is a crime in itself and here is a link to a recent case involving that HM Harbour Regulations and Enforcement - Littlehampton Harbour

On another note, the stuff above about supermarket car parks is incorrect, they are covered by the Road Traffic Act and accidents there are reportable, and therefore supermarkets must hand over the video footage if requested.