Someone will help you find a contact?

[Hutch]

My Neice, is working in Moscow as a teacher, for the last 4 years, and has sent the family some wonderful photographs of her times over there, The Troikas, lake side cabins and Ice skating in central Moscow, in the winter, summers look fantastic. We are thinking of getting the train, from Paris to Moscow.
EW, enjoy your caravan.

 

[Hutch]

My Neice, got back to Moscow, an hour ago.

 

[Parksy]

He has never asked an organisation to pass on someone’s details, which, as you say, is illegal. Simply to pass on HIS details.

John

Like I said before, I just want to pass on my email address. No one can stop me from hoping that the previous owner will write to me

I'm well aware of that.
My comment was merely intended to manage expectations and to reinforce the fact that Practical Caravan forum will play no part in any exchange of contact details.

 

[Jcloughie]

I'm well aware of that.
My comment was merely intended to manage expectations and to reinforce the fact that Practical Caravan forum will play no part in any exchange of contact details.

I think that is fully understood, and not anything that was expected within this topic. Hence my comment.

John

 

[ProfJohnL]

Personally cannot see how simply passing on an email address that was requested to be passed on, therefore expected and know to be passed on. To a contact which is held legitimately on a database, contravenes the Act. It is then completely up to the recipient (previous owner) what they choose to do with that email address.
...

Cris is not set up to put data subjects in touch with each other. Just consider how such a service requires considerable management, and Cris may simple do not want the hassle of getting involved with providing it, becasue you only have to look at how the big boys like Facebook and others have had to try and deal with scams, and data breeches all of which costs money to manage.

The DPA requires that any organisation that collects personal and sensitive personal data must define what they use it for, and ensure it is not used for any other purposes. Cris is simply protecting itself from getting involved in any "off focus" communications. If any employee of Cris offered to facilitate EW1999, they would be in breech of the DPA becasue they had accessed and processed data from the companies database outside of the companies DPA scope of approval.

 

[Parksy]

I think that is fully understood, and not anything that was expected within this topic. Hence my comment.

John

It's fully understood now I hope.
I'm not sure that the position was fully understood when the o.p. contacted CRiS.
Hence my comment.

 

[Buckman]

He has never asked an organisation to pass on someone’s details, which, as you say, is illegal. Simply to pass on HIS details.

John

Maybe many companies may regard that as illegal and do not want to take the chance as there is no criminal activity associated with the request from a private individual. To them it woudl be a waste of their time passing on details for no real reason. Also a previous owner and there may be several or mroe may have no interest in corresponding with a new owner.

 

[Jcloughie]

Cris is not set up to put data subjects in touch with each other. Just consider how such a service requires considerable management, and Cris may simple do not want the hassle of getting involved with providing it, becasue you only have to look at how the big boys like Facebook and others have had to try and deal with scams, and data breeches all of which costs money to manage.

The DPA requires that any organisation that collects personal and sensitive personal data must define what they use it for, and ensure it is not used for any other purposes. Cris is simply protecting itself from getting involved in any "off focus" communications. If any employee of Cris offered to facilitate EW1999, they would be in breech of the DPA becasue they had accessed and processed data from the companies database outside of the companies DPA scope of approval.

Prof, I am extremely well aware of the act in great detail. Been on many courses and had trusted access to thousands of personal records including medical and mental assessments. In over 40 years I never contravened the rules which are mostly common sense.

But this topic is not about anybody attempting to contravene the act. And never has been. I simply suggested that the OP attempted to request that CRiS PASS ON his details. Obviously that is not what they are set up for and they are under no obligation to do so. The fact that they did not do so is understandable, particularly given some peoples poor understanding of what the act is about.

CRiS may simply want to be cautious, even over cautious. After all, on the detail some have differing interpretations. Or they simply may not wish to get involved. Who knows.

Both myself, and the OP felt it was worth a go, nothing ventured nothing gained as they say. And that is ALL that happened. The outcome has been accepted.

Why this has led to a legal discussion beyond me. And beyond the scope of the topic.

John

 

[Firkle]

Back to the original topic.

EW, I notice in one of your photographs that there was a sticker for Salop Caravans, who I assume were the supplying dealer at some point in the caravan's life.

They are still in business as Salop Leisure and possibly may be able to help you.

Their web site is https://www.salopleisure.co.uk/

 

[ProfJohnL]

...Why this has led to a legal discussion beyond me.

Because the OP who is not based in the UK has made a highly unusual request, and may not be aware that for most UK or even EU organisations have quite strict obligations under Data Protection Act, that prescribes and limits how they can process the personal data they collect.

It shows the reason why he has been unsuccessful in his quest so far.

 

[Damian]

Why this has led to a legal discussion beyond me. And beyond the scope of the topic.

This happens a lot on the Forum.
A simple question is asked, hoping for a simple answer, but some users , for some unknown reason, decide to g o into the whole 24 yards of technical reasons why this or that contravenes some legal aspect or other reason why the question cannot or should no be answered.

I do not know if it is just points scoring, or simply a case of I know more about this than you.

Whatever the reasons, this topic has run its course and is now closed.