Unusual Situation

[Frogmogman]

Think about the logic of what you are saying carefully. The natural conclusion is insurers should make economically poor decisions to make a point, which will put up your premiums!

I suspect if you really wanted to risk thousands to get your loss (excess?) back there is nothing to stop you suing the other driver (or their insurer if they have one) directly. Similarly an insurer could market a policy with the mantra of “we never drop a case, that’s why we cost more” but I don’t see many people wanting to pay more!

Yes, you are right, of course.

 

[Mark-1]

Similarly an insurer could market a policy with the mantra of “we never drop a case, that’s why we cost more”

I know a lot of bloody minded people who would go for that. I think I'm one of them.

 

[oldbloke]

The danger with insurance companies taking the easy, and in the short term cheaper, way out is that in the longer term that culture encourages fraudulent and exaggerated claims. So Frogman's attacker knows he will get away with it, so he, and his mates, do it again. If he had been persuaded through the courts and had damages awarded against him, he wouldn't do it again, nor would his mates.
As a GP, I was covered by a medical protection society. They had a policy of never paying out a claim just because it wax cheaper to do so. Every claim was examined, and if they thought their member was in the right they contested all the way, thus preventing an ambulance chasing mentality developing

 

[Mark-1]

The danger with insurance companies taking the easy, and in the short term cheaper, way out is that in the longer term that culture encourages fraudulent and exaggerated claims. So Frogman's attacker knows he will get away with it, so he, and his mates, do it again. If he had been persuaded through the courts and had damages awarded against him, he wouldn't do it again, nor would his mates.
As a GP, I was covered by a medical protection society. They had a policy of never paying out a claim just because it wax cheaper to do so. Every claim was examined, and if they thought their member was in the right they contested all the way, thus preventing an ambulance chasing mentality developing

I think that attitude has long since gone in the motor insurance world. 80% of claims are 50:50 because it cheaper to pay out than to check.

 

[ylop]

The danger with insurance companies taking the easy, and in the short term cheaper, way out is that in the longer term that culture encourages fraudulent and exaggerated claims. So Frogman's attacker knows he will get away with it, so he, and his mates, do it again.

This is true, but the threshold for fighting will depend on the basis of each claim. Investigating takes time which is money the insurer doesn’t get back so they know that on average X hours of scrutiny/chasing will save them an average of Y. If Y < the cost of the work then don’t bother.

I think that attitude has long since gone in the motor insurance world. 80% of claims are 50:50 because it cheaper to pay out than to check.

I think with insurers there is potentially an extra dimension. If we are both insured with the same company - there’s no net saving to them from winning. Indeed even if on the face of it we have different insurers but the same underwriter why would they fight themselves.

 

[Mark-1]

I think with insurers there is potentially an extra dimension. If we are both insured with the same company - there’s no net saving to them from winning. Indeed even if on the face of it we have different insurers but the same underwriter why would they fight themselves.

And by the same logic why fight a competitor because, on average, they'll both come out quits if they fight nothing. Which is (I think) where we are.

 

[penberth3]

You are well within your rights to start a claim against the harbour for letting it happen. That’s entirely separate to data privacy.
It’s unlikely you’d succeed but they knew it was happening and filmed it happening so we’re in a position to protect your property...

Seriously? You expect the Harbour Authority to leap into action and chase every wayward vessel they might notice on CCTV?

 

[lustyd]

Seriously? You expect the Harbour Authority to leap into action and chase every wayward vessel they might notice on CCTV?

No, but it would be nice if you read the original post. They did follow the boat and they filmed it, it wasn't CCTV.

 

[Frogmogman]

And by the same logic why fight a competitor because, on average, they'll both come out quits if they fight nothing. Which is (I think) where we are.

… and if the other party turns out to be uninsured, the insurer will end up paying out anyway

 

[ylop]

And by the same logic why fight a competitor because, on average, they'll both come out quits if they fight nothing. Which is (I think) where we are.

Yes if you have similar numbers / types of claims and chances of winning then it makes sense not to fight, especially as then you can load the customer's premium!

 

[Seven Spades]

Flip the situation round. Someone else in the harbour claims your vessel caused them damage (perhaps a line broke and you weren’t on board - so we don’t have to deal with the obvious fact that you are an upstanding member of society and would have sorted it directly yourself). Now are you happy for the harbour master to provide your details to any person who asks for them on the premise your boat damaged them? Only if the HM reviews the CCTV and sees there was contact? Or only after he first discusses it with you directly?

Their statutory status or yours as a customer has nothing to do with it - they have obligations to safeguard that data. Lustyd is slightly overstating the situation by suggesting they can never give the other party’s data out, but I think BenJenBav explained the situation well: Once the data is provided you can never put the genie back in the bottle, so you want to be 100% sure that providing the data in necessary and proportionate. Some large companies will simply say, “get a court order” they aren’t actually trying to resist providing the data, they just want to be certain that the other party has no recourse against them.

Imagine if they had provided you his details and you got no response in 24h - probably most of us would assume he’s intentionally ignoring you. People then start doing stuff like posting his details on Facebook / forums trying to track him down or shame him into action. In reality he’s lying on a trolley in A&E waiting to be seen.

Still not convinced? imagine a hypothetical attractive young lady bumps boats with a letcherous middle aged man. She discussed the damage, he suggests they go for dinner to work it out and she leaves without providing her details. Should the HM provide her details to the letch? Or might it be better if she has the option of simply providing her insurers details? Why is another boater afforded any less protection of his privacy because of some subjective assessment of either their “risk” or your “creepiness”.

GDPR exists to protect YOUR data from misuse. Sometimes that will mean you have to jump through more hoops if you want someone else’s data.

I think that this is a stupid argument. If you have a road accident you are required to pass details to the other party. Anyone can hide behind 'oh I didn't want to give my details because I think he is creepy" to get out of their liability. We have a presumption of innocence here. So yes I am very happy to have my details passed on. Fort goodness sake don't you remember you could walk into any telephone box and look up someones name and find theur address and telephone number what are we all afraid of these days. Woke nonsense.

 

[lustyd]

I think that this is a stupid argument. If you have a road accident you are required to pass details to the other party. Anyone can hide behind 'oh I didn't want to give my details because I think he is creepy" to get out of their liability. We have a presumption of innocence here. So yes I am very happy to have my details passed on. Fort goodness sake don't you remember you could walk into any telephone box and look up someones name and find theur address and telephone number what are we all afraid of these days. Woke nonsense.

Road law overrides GDPR, as do all other laws specifying disclosure or retention of information. The way to look at GDPR is start by assuming the data cannot be shared but if you find a legal reason why it can or must then you’re ok. The issue here is that there wasn’t a legal reason to share with a member of the public. Had police or insurance asked there may have been a different response.

 

[DFL1010]

I think that this is a stupid argument. If you have a road accident you are required to pass details to the other party. Anyone can hide behind 'oh I didn't want to give my details because I think he is creepy" to get out of their liability. We have a presumption of innocence here. So yes I am very happy to have my details passed on. Fort goodness sake don't you remember you could walk into any telephone box and look up someones name and find theur address and telephone number what are we all afraid of these days. Woke nonsense.

 

[KevinV]

The issue here is that there wasn’t a legal reason to share with a member of the public.

He isn't a "member of the public", he's an injured party

Had police or insurance asked there may have been a different response.

I don't see why there is a difference in data handling whether the injured party pursues a claim themselves or through their insurance? It's the same claim, by the same injured party, against the same person.

 

[ylop]

I don't see why there is a difference in data handling whether the injured party pursues a claim themselves or through their insurance? It's the same claim, by the same injured party, against the same person.

Ultimately you may be right, but any corporate entity (insurer, solicitor, etc) that gets the information has similar obligations to safeguard that information as the original data controller. They may even have additional regulatory or statutory obligations. Data protection burdens don’t apply to information held by ordinary people in the ordinary course of life.

 

[ylop]

I think that this is a stupid argument.

Nothing is as stupid an argument as using woke as a synonym for “modern”!

If you have a road accident you are required to pass details to the other party. Anyone can hide behind 'oh I didn't want to give my details because I think he is creepy" to get out of their liability.

you can’t - there is a statutory obligation to provide your details, although people have immediately gone to the police and said “I didn’t feel safe to get out the car because the other party was going crazy” and common sense avoids a prosecution, or disclosing the driver details to the crazy person by passing insurance details.

If you don’t like that no such obligation exists in the harbour regulations (the obligation is to report to the HM not the other party!) your time would be better spent suggesting this to the HM rather than saying a law must be wrong because you don’t like it.

We have a presumption of innocence here. So yes I am very happy to have my details passed on.

Nobody had suggested a crime took place, so your presumption of innocence to be rebutted with evidence beyond reasonable doubt is irrelevant - you only need the other party’s version to be slightly more believed than yours and suddenly you will be liable! And win or lose you risk being out of pocket for liability. However nobody has suggested that GDPR enables a rogue boat operator to hide with impunity.

Fort goodness sake don't you remember you could walk into any telephone box and look up someone’s name and find theur address and telephone number

I do remember that - and as long as I remember you have been able to be ex directory if you do wished. However the world has changed, in the days when there were phone books in call boxes your total exposure was to people who knew your name and were close enough to visit a call box. We are now in a time where one foot wrong and it’s not your village idiot you need to fear it’s every nutter on the Internet piling on to abuse you for having an accident and walking away. Or as in this case, assuming the latest info from the HM is correct, from having a medical incident and being taken to hospital. It’s a perfect example of how half the story can be misrepresented and people who have never met either of the protagonists are getting angry.

what are we all afraid of these days.

Apparently a number of grumpy old men on this thread are afraid that laws exist to protect their data.

 

[lustyd]

He isn't a "member of the public", he's an injured party

Incorrect. As far as the law is concerned it’s just some random person, and for good reason. It’s been covered many times in this thread so you’ll need to either go back and read it or accept that you don’t understand the law.

Whether you care to understand it or not changes nothing, it is what it is and it was applied correctly here.

 

[lustyd]

Ultimately you may be right, but any corporate entity (insurer, solicitor, etc) that gets the information has similar obligations to safeguard that information as the original data controller. They may even have additional regulatory or statutory obligations. Data protection burdens don’t apply to information held by ordinary people in the ordinary course of life.

There’s a very clear difference. The police have well understood procedures for following up. Random folk off the street don’t, hence my using the term vigilante earlier on. It could go well and amicably, or the injured party may burn the offenders house down in revenge. Nobody knows which, hence the controls.

 

[Mister E]

The injured party can apply to the courts and drag the harbour authorities there in support of a case to get the denied information.
If the injured party have informed the harbour that they intend to take legal action for the release of evidence, then the harbour would be obliged to keep the evidence to produce in court.
You don't have to be in the legal profession to go down that route.

That is not the action of a random person of the street.

 

[dslittle]

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.

The police are wrong.

Criminal Damage Definition - 1)A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.