Purrivacy lunacy! Microchip firm tells family of rare lost cat: We can’t reveal who’s got him — because of data protection laws
WHEN the pet cat they all doted on suddenly vanished four years ago, Karen Young and her three children were distraught.
So when a pet microchipping company called out of the blue three weeks ago to say someone else was requesting to be recorded as Tigger’s new owner, the family assumed that being reunited with their long-lost Bengal cat would be a mere formality.
But Mrs Young, her daughter Carmen, 13 and sons Leon, 15 and Sam, 19, have been left ‘flabbergasted’ after the firm refused to reveal Tigger’s new address – due to the Data Protection Act.
She still possessed a receipt of purchase for Tigger from the breeder who reared the cat, as well as ownership paperwork and a pedigree certificate.
But microchipping firm Petlog claimed the legislation restricted them to simply passing Mrs Young’s details on to the cat’s current ‘owner’.
Yesterday Mrs Young, 41, a beautician from Tamworth, Staffordshire, said: ‘I can’t believe Data Protection can be used to thwart a cat from being reunited with its rightful owner.
‘Petlog say it is up to the person or people who have him to get in touch with me.
‘It has now been three weeks since Petlog got in touch and I have heard nothing from the people claiming to be his owners. They continue to withhold him.
‘It’s a joke that Petlog are allowed to give my details to the people who have Tigger, but I’m not allowed theirs. If they were citing data protection rules it should go both ways.’
Mrs Young, who is separated from Carmen’s father and whose older children are from an earlier marriage, said the family searched their neighbourhood and put up posters when Tigger went missing in 2012.
But after a few months they had given up hope of seeing him again and informed Petlog, and their vet, which was also registered against Tigger’s name on the microchip, that he had disappeared.
The trail was cold until last month, when Petlog suddenly got in touch.
Mrs Young said: ‘Who knows how long they’ve had him for, knowing he belongs to someone else?’
She has since contacted Staffordshire Police to report the cat as stolen. The force has asked Petlog to inform the other party of their responsibility to return the cat.
In April it became compulsory for dog owners to ensure their pet is microchipped, although it is not a legal requirement for cat owners.
Petlog said: ‘It is against Data Protection legislation to provide personal data to third parties and Petlog must work through authorised statutory agencies.’
The firm said: ‘A microchip registration should not be treated as proof of ownership, but rather it is a record of keepership, i.e., where a pet animal normally resides and is intended to assist reunification if the pet goes missing.’ It added that where pets are stolen, police must be informed. In legal disputes over ownership, if no agreement can be reached between the two conflicting parties, it is for the civil courts to decide.
A Staffordshire Police spokesman said the force was aware of the incident and that the people currently in possession of Tigger had been told to ‘take appropriate steps to return the cat to its rightful owner’ or face further potential police action.