It beggars belief that specialist information departments within constabularies, day in, day out, considering and making decisions about police report/information disclosure, could be so unfamiliar with Data Protection legislation. Is ignorance of the law is an excuse for the law or is the conduct the result of some wider, agreed-upon position to be adopted?
Background
A police report is frequently required to substantiate an allegation of vehicle theft. In the 1970’s a them & us situation was adopted by the police; they would not speak to insurers. Commonly, insurers or their representatives had a ‘contact’ within the police or would attempt to speak with the officer in the case (OiC) to progress matters.
The 1984 Data Protection Act had an adverse effect upon such casual engagements with many now believing (as currently appears to be the case in many situations) this legislation was a fraudster’s charter.
2002 saw the instigation of the first ACPO (as was) & ABI MoU (memorandum of understanding) – an agreement between the police and insurers for the exchange of information. Over the years, this basic but workable process has evolved such that now it is convoluted, excludes many (appears prejudicial) and may not even be acted upon!
2022, in or about June, the latest MoU was issued
2023, Staffordshire police simply closed the door on disclosure
Failed or refused to listen to valid arguments
Outside of the Act – I stated I knew that Section 177 of DPA 2018 was
a) not the right legislation to refer to if we were intent on considering enforced subject access requests and
b) the accusations of enforced SARs was not the right thing for us to do. WDTK