Family in data protection row get their cat back
A FAMILY told they could not be reunited with their long-lost cat because of data protection law finally have their pet back at home.
Karen Young, 41, and her children are now celebrating the safe return of seven-year-old Tigger. ‘We’re over the moon,’ said beauty worker Mrs Young.
‘The kids were close to tears when I walked in the door with him. I’m glad the people who had him decided to do the right thing.’
Tigger, a Bengal, vanished in 2012 and Mrs Young and her children Carmen, 13, Leon, 15 and Sam, 19, had given up hope of seeing him again.
But he had been microchipped in 2009 when Mrs Young bought him. So when three weeks ago she was contacted by microchip database, Petlog, she was delighted and assumed she could have him back.
However, the letter was a change in ownership request and Petlog, citing the Data Protection Act, refused to hand over the details of those who had Tigger – even though Mrs Young had paperwork proving she was his real owner.
Mrs Young added: ‘They told me it was up to the people who had him to get in touch with me. So essentially, it was out of my hands. I had no rights to my own cat.
‘I’m just glad the keepers did the right thing and realised how much misery they were causing us all, but it’s no thanks to Petlog.’
Petlog would only tell Mrs Young that it would pass on her details to Tigger’s current owner.
So she reported the case to the police and the woman who had him – who lived near the family home in Tamworth, Staffordshire, and insisted she bought Tigger in 2012 in good faith – gave him back. Miss Young says if it had not been for the media and the police, she would not have seen the cat again.
She said: ‘The fact still remains that Petlog didn’t help me get Tigger back. The keepers would have continued to hide behind the Data Protection Act if they hadn’t have felt the pressure from the Press and police.
‘Too many pet owners are going through this and are still battling to get their animals back. It’s an unfair system that needs to change.’
A Petlog spokesman said: ‘Microchip registration should not be treated as proof of ownership, but rather a record of keepership i.e. where a pet normally resides.’ And he insisted: ‘It is against data protection legislation to provide personal data to third parties.’