Unusual Situation

[ylop]

The HM is wrong and is obliged to supply you the details of the other party.

Can you provide a citation? I think they may not be prevented from doing so - that is not actually the same as being obliged to.

My experience is that people in their shoes want to help, but will cover their own ass until someone official tells them to release the info.

Also, the data protection legislation doesn't apply to criminal enquiries, or pursuit off offenders,

But the OP is neither a law enforcement agency nor is there a criminal enquiry.

but I also think you are entitled to the harbour masters evidence anyway because your boat is in the video.

the video, whilst certainly interesting is not what he really needs - that’s the name and address of the other party.

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

my interpretation of that is that the HM is the investigator/prosecutor there?

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.

But not necessarily to the other party. Supermarkets almost invariably provide the details to the police.

 

[Lucky Duck]

Rather confused by the talk of the OP potentially being a vigilante, outside claiming on one’s own insurance or the third party stepping up then the proper recourse would be via the county court which requires a name and address for service

 

[lustyd]

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.

You’re misinterpreting. They are obliged to hand over footage, just not to random members of the public. The legislation does apply to criminal investigations etc. but certain organisations including the police have exemptions. The GDPR is only 86 pages or so and although it uses legal wording is a remarkably simple and concise document.

 

[Cerebus]

Is the warf where the OP moored his boat private property or government owned?

If not, am I not correct in that anyone can film almost anything (not children obviously) in a public setting?

Hence dashcams are so prevalent for a start.

Not my area of expertise, but if the filming was in a public space does GDPA apply?

Even if on private property the owners of the film could refuse to hand it over as it is their property, but would seem a bit petty perhaps.

I don’t have reason to believe a boater to be a vigilante; I have only met very nice people in all my sailing; I think the OP simply wants to ask them for their insurance details so he does not have to claim with his insurance company.

I once reversed my car into another car’s door that was parked in the street (and not on his drive) in a pretty stupid spot on a dark night.

I immediately rang his doorbell and and told him what an idiot I was and within 10 minutes had given him my insurance documents.

My insurance company sorted it all without even bothering me and certainly did not bother his insurance.

 

[lustyd]

If not, am I not correct in that anyone can film almost anything (not children obviously) in a public setting?

It’s more complex than you think. In this instance it’s not a “natural person” doing the filming so the rules immediately change. Storing and sharing footage then becomes subject to GDPR as does all CCTV taken by a “legal person”.

 

[Cerebus]

It’s more complex than you think. In this instance it’s not a “natural person” doing the filming so the rules immediately change. Storing and sharing footage then becomes subject to GDPR as does all CCTV taken by a “legal person”.

That is a shame for the OP.

Rules; aren’t they great?

 

[lustyd]

Rules; aren’t they great?

The alternative to these rules is what America have. So yes, love them.

 

[Cerebus]

The alternative to these rules is what America have. So yes, love them.

What do America have, please?

Why is the UK the most monitored country in the world with more cctv than any other.

I consider it a good thing if it stops criminals.

 

[rotrax]

That is a shame for the OP.

Rules; aren’t they great?

A Truism I like is "Rules are made for the guidance of Wise Men, not the blind obedience of fools"

The Littlehampton HM is interviewing the culprit tomorrow. As he was in the 'oggin and had to be rescued, plus his boat was slowly sinking, I suspect this is part of the HM's duty after an incident of this sort.

He has assured me he will ask the culprit if he can forward details to the injured party-ie, me!

If not, he has assured me he will pass the culprits details to my Insurance Company, who have already contacted him.

So, some light at the end of the tunnel!

 

[Cerebus]

A Truism I like is "Rules are made for the guidance of Wise Men, not the blind obedience of fools"

The Littlehampton HM is interviewing the culprit tomorrow. As he was in the 'oggin and had to be rescued, plus his boat was slowly sinking, I suspect this is part of the HM's duty after an incident of this sort.

He has assured me he will ask the culprit if he can forward details to the injured party-ie, me!

If not, he has assured me he will pass the culprits details to my Insurance Company, who have already contacted him.

So, some light at the end of the tunnel!

Excellent outcome.

 

[ylop]

Not my area of expertise, but if the filming was in a public space does GDPA apply?

It certainly does. GDPR/DPA don’t say what many people think it does - because people don’t bother to read it, “consultants” make it out to be complex (so you’ll pay them) and because it’s a handy excuse for not doing something or having a tantrum about something when it’s convenient to know a tiny amount but not any detail but the rules exist to protect your (and everyone else) general privacy and to stop some business and even government doing naughty stuff to exploit us. They don’t stop information being shared with the proper channels when there is a good reason, they just put safeguards in place. If the OP actually was a vigilante and the other boater suddenly had a visit from the heavies demanding compensation then you might think it outrageous that the HM gave out his details. Equally if you wanted to know the owner of the boat on the otherside of harbour for some nefarious purpose (perhaps his wife is attractive, perhaps you want to break in when you know he’s at the boat, or perhaps you just want to promote him some fancy teak decking) then you’d expected HM not to share it, perhaps even if you claimed to have caused some minor damage.

I immediately rang his doorbell and and told him what an idiot I was and within 10 minutes had given him my insurance documents.

But in a motor vehicle you have a statutory obligation to be both insured and to pass those details to anyone you collide with. Despite you doing the right thing lots of people don’t. CCTV often helps sort that out, but often with some formalities before it’s just handed over.

It sounds like the OP has actually got to a pretty swift resolution.

 

[lustyd]

A Truism I like is "Rules are made for the guidance of Wise Men, not the blind obedience of fools

It’s “and the obedience of fools”. Meaning fools blindly follow rules to the letter while the wise understand the intent.

Quite fitting here, the first section of GDPR explains the intent nicely and the rest doesn’t really need to be read.

 

[Cerebus]

It certainly does. GDPR/DPA don’t say what many people think it does - because people don’t bother to read it, “consultants” make it out to be complex (so you’ll pay them) and because it’s a handy excuse for not doing something or having a tantrum about something when it’s convenient to know a tiny amount but not any detail but the rules exist to protect your (and everyone else) general privacy and to stop some business and even government doing naughty stuff to exploit us. They don’t stop information being shared with the proper channels when there is a good reason, they just put safeguards in place. If the OP actually was a vigilante and the other boater suddenly had a visit from the heavies demanding compensation then you might think it outrageous that the HM gave out his details. Equally if you wanted to know the owner of the boat on the otherside of harbour for some nefarious purpose (perhaps his wife is attractive, perhaps you want to break in when you know he’s at the boat, or perhaps you just want to promote him some fancy teak decking) then you’d expected HM not to share it, perhaps even if you claimed to have caused some minor damage.

But in a motor vehicle you have a statutory obligation to be both insured and to pass those details to anyone you collide with. Despite you doing the right thing lots of people don’t. CCTV often helps sort that out, but often with some formalities before it’s just handed over.

It sounds like the OP has actually got to a pretty swift resolution.

That makes sense, thank you.

Does GDPA (no I have not read it and feel free to tell me you don’t have the time to explain and that I should find it and read it) apply to applications other than CCTV.

I once made an application for a lease and gave them a lot of personal details. I was refused the lease. I asked them to delete all personal info with the then new GDPA in mind. Whether they did I do not know and without visiting the offices and trawling through filing cabinets and computers they could still have very personal details.

 

[Cerebus]

It’s “and the obedience of fools”. Meaning fools blindly follow rules to the letter while the wise understand the intent.

Quite fitting here, the first section of GDPR explains the intent nicely and the rest doesn’t really need to be read.

Are you able and willing to offer a précis (even an abridged version) for ignorant people such as I am, of what the first section states, please?

If no time, and consider me lazy, I understand.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

It’s more complex than you think. In this instance it’s not a “natural person” doing the filming so the rules immediately change. Storing and sharing footage then becomes subject to GDPR as does all CCTV taken by a “legal person”.

And even more complex than that, as ALL data regarding the subject (even paper records) is tied to the digital data. Data protection for an organisation is a minefield, and I can sympathise with the harbour master; we don't know what other information the harbour holds. I think that the OP's best course is to communicate with his own insurers making it plain that there is evidence to identify the person's who caused the damage, and that you expect them to claim against them using their own legal team to obtain identification.

 

[lustyd]

Are you able and willing to offer a précis (even an abridged version) for ignorant people such as I am, of what the first section states, please?

If no time, and consider me lazy, I understand.

the first section is the precis. It simply explains what the law is intended to achieve.

 

[Cerebus]

the first section is the precis. It simply explains what the law is intended to achieve.

I will dig into it sometime, thank you.

 

[lustyd]

Chapter 2 – Principles - General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is a reasonably good place to start. I don't find the UK DPA to be quite so well put together for some reason. I found and reported some pretty glaring errors in the DPA post B-Day, which have since been fixed, so we can once again store British data in Britain

 

[rotrax]

A brief update.

The HM has interviewed the culprit, who apparently collapsed due to a change of medication. He was rescued, unconcious, from the Harbour, no lifejacket, boat taking on water. He is reported as suffering no long term injury from the incident, which is pleasing. Boats can be mended with a cheque book or insurance company, bodies cant. Phew!

I now have some contact details, have left a message and have had a text reply saying he will be in touch this evening to sort things out.

Looking good so far.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

A brief update.

The HM has interviewed the culprit, who apparently collapsed due to a change of medication. He was rescued, unconcious, from the Harbour, no lifejacket, boat taking on water. He is reported as suffering no long term injury from the incident, which is pleasing. Boats can be mended with a cheque book or insurance company, bodies cant. Phew!

I now have some contact details, have left a message and have had a text reply saying he will be in touch this evening to sort things out.

Looking good so far.

Just to note that the circumstances entirely justify the HM's refusal to share the data on GDPR grounds. Glad it could be sorted out amicably.