Data Protection clarification- - Administrator of a Facebook Group

[momma]

Not sure if this is in the correct forum. Please move if necessary.

 

A bit if advice regarding an Administrator of a Facebook Group of which there are over 8000 members.

 

I am the claimant in a court case after someone on a Facebook group owes me money after agreeing to purchase from me via the group and refusing to pay. Defendant is stating that the 'item' was offered 'free of charge'.

 

Prior to the defendant offering to purchase, I exchanged some personal information via a series of private messages with one of the Admin on said group.

 

I have just received the defence papers from the defendant and as part of her defence, she had submitted part of a private message exchanged between myself and the Admin. She could only have got this from the Administrator.

 

It is unlikely to help in her defence as reading the full exchange, and not the bit she submitted is not detrimental, but at the time I offered to sell her the 'item', I had no idea that this defendant was best friends with the Admin.

 

In addition, she has been provided by the Admin a copy of the advert which has been changed to show the Item 'for free'. Luckily I copied and retained the original advert. All posts from myself have now been deleted by Admin in relation to said item.

 

What I am asking is: the personal information between me and the Admin was just that, personal, and I am shocked and angry that this information has been given to a third party without my express permission and that third party is now trying to use it in her defence.

 

Does this come under the Data Protection Act at all? Has the Admin committed a breach of the Act?

 

Hoping I am making myself clear.

[Ganymede]

Section 35(2)(a) of the DPA would apply probably.

[momma]

Ganymede, I understand where you are coming from with your reply..thank you.

 

However, this Admin is not involved in this case, and had she not been a friend of the defendant, she (the defendant) would have no knowledge of my private messages between the Admin and myself.

 

It is clear that the defendant is in trouble otherwise they (Admin) would not have wiped my public posts, along with the Admin's public posts which support my claim and altered the advert to support the defendant.

 

As this information has not been requested by the court and it is not at all relevant, I don't believe that she should reveal my private messages to anyone.

 

I have been looking at how the DPA is relevant to social networking sites and not sure that I have understood it, taken from the Information Commissioners Office (ISO).

 

Anyway, thanks.

[BazzaS]

Can you get the original (unaltered) post by approaching Facebook, (as well as your saved copy).

If it comes to a court case and they submit the altered version:

a) you may need to evidence what Facebook say was the version posted for the civil case

b) report the false version to the police / ActionFraud.

[Ganymede]

Ganymede, I understand where you are coming from with your reply..thank you.

 

However, this Admin is not involved in this case, and had she not been a friend of the defendant, she (the defendant) would have no knowledge of my private messages between the Admin and myself.

 

It is clear that the defendant is in trouble otherwise they (Admin) would not have wiped my public posts, along with the Admin's public posts which support my claim and altered the advert to support the defendant.

 

As this information has not been requested by the court and it is not at all relevant, I don't believe that she should reveal my private messages to anyone.

 

I have been looking at how the DPA is relevant to social networking sites and not sure that I have understood it, taken from the Information Commissioners Office (ISO).

 

Anyway, thanks.

 

The Administrator can use s.35 as a reason for disclosing the information and not breaching the DPA.

[momma]

I have the original saved from before Admin on Facebook took the post down. As Admin on Facebook is helping the defendant then there is no point in approaching them as they are the ones that have altered the advert post it's removal.

 

I have the advert with a date and time on it. I also have the private message response from the defendant where she twice messaged me asking to buy the item. This is also dated and timed AFTER the time and date on the advert.

[Ganymede]

Can't you just list the item for sale again?

 

What financial losses have you suffered?

[momma]

I've lost the item..£1600

[Ganymede]

So you sent the item to the Defendant before they paid?

[BazzaS]

I have the original saved from before Admin on Facebook took the post down. As Admin on Facebook is helping the defendant then there is no point in approaching them as they are the ones that have altered the advert post it's removal.

 

Facebook's records.

 

Not the Facebook group's admin's records.

[momma]

It does sound a little far fetched I know. I was trying not to name the 'item'.

 

The item is a pure bred puppy, that I bred myself. She was the last of the litter and the defendant viewed her, went away and offered to purchase. I agreed to sell the puppy when she was old enough, two weeks later but also agreed to keep the puppy for an extra couple of weeks.

 

Meanwhile, I suffered a heart attack and was in hospital. The burden of looking after not only my resident dogs, but the remaining puppy fell upon my daughter, who herself was waiting for knee replacement surgery, a single parent of a severely disabled child.

 

The defendant was notified that I was in hospital and to contact my daughter to arrange to pick up the puppy from my daughters. The paperwork was still at my home address, contract needed signing etc. and KC paperwork, insurance filling in, which I couldn't do. My daughter thinking that she was doing the right thing and extremely stressed re my being in hospital and undergoing heart surgery, let the puppy go without taking payment as defendant said she would come back with the money once the paperwork was ready and I was out of hospital.

 

Stupid mistake thinking that the defendant was trustworthy. Now she is refusing to pay or return the puppy. Lesson learnt!..the hard way. Not my daughters fault as I understood her dilemma.

[momma]

Facebook's records.

 

Not the Facebook group's admin's records.

 

Sorry, misunderstood. How on earth do Facebook keep records of all postings on individual Facebook groups?

[BazzaS]

Sorry, misunderstood. How on earth do Facebook keep records of all postings on individual Facebook groups?

 

Large amounts of storage.

Ever edited a Facebook post? Gone back later and re-edited it?

Each sequential edit can be viewed (how long for : I don't know!)

 

My understanding is the same applies on CAG (or, at least, applied : less call for it now there is only 10 mins in which to edit a post?)

[momma]

Large amounts of storage.

Ever edited a Facebook post? Gone back later and re-edited it?

Each sequential edit can be viewed (how long for : I don't know!)

 

My understanding is the same applies on CAG (or, at least, applied : less call for it now there is only 10 mins in which to edit a post?)

 

I've edited a post on my own Facebook, never on someone else's. To be honest, I rarely use it other than to receive messages and photo's from my grandchildren. I'm not a 'social media' addict.

 

Are you saying that I contact Facebook directly for their help?

[BazzaS]

Facebook's records.

Not the Facebook group's admin's records.

 

Are you saying that I contact Facebook directly for their help?

 

Yes.

[hightail]

How recent is this and how old was the pup at the time it changed hands?

[momma]

Not sure of the relevance of either question? Pup was 15 weeks.

[hightail]

Not directly relevant to the title of the thread but trying to help with all angles so you have the strongest case. If this happened after April of this year and the pup was over 8 weeks old then by law the microchip details had to be updated to show the new keeper. With pups it's normally the breeder who does this but the new keeper can. Did you or have you had notification they tried to? If you didn't then it's a strong indication you never intended to hand the pup over to them and you should get on to Petlog and report it as a theft.

[momma]

Unfortunately it was March..The defendant has informed me that she has chipped the pup in line with the new chip law.

 

I have been trying to get her back since April, and have already reported it to the police. The unfortunate thing with regard to that, is that the defendant lives in another county. My police force had to hand the case over to them. My Police force told me they would have had no hesitation at seizing the pup had the defendant lived in this county. The police in the county where the defendant lives say it is a matter for the courts as it is a civil matter and wouldn't even take into consideration any evidence I had. My local police did.

 

Anyway, it is now up to the court to decide. Fortunately for me, this defendant is a member of 4 Facebook groups and has a very 'loud' and bragging mouth. She is very 'look at me, aren't I great'.

 

On her defence for the court case she has stated ..highlighted in bold for the attention of the judge, several statements denying a sequence of events, but on her Facebook postings, blogs and notices, she has stated entirely the opposite, showing what a lier she is.

 

Thanks for trying to help.

[hightail]

The defendant has informed me that she has chipped the pup in line with the new chip law.

Be aware, chipping is not considered proof of ownership, only 'keepership'. There is a well publicised case of a cat in the media at the moment so if you think she may try and use the fact the dog is registered to her through the chip let me know and I'll give you the details to show otherwise. Can't hurt to have a counter argument ready.

[momma]

She has stated that as part of her argument, so it would be helpful if you could give me information that would produce a counter argument.

 

As per legal advice, I contacted all the vets in her area and surrounding area to make them aware that should she take the puppy to them for treatment they are not to treat it other than in a critical emergency, but refer back to me. I have given them the case number and court contact details for verification. I have managed to get an interim injunction. One vet practice has come back to me and stated she is not registered with them, but will comply should she approach them..meant to add, as a threat to me she is now threatening to neuter the puppy

[hightail]

Here you go, the relevant bit from a Petlog spokesman is at the bottom

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/12/missing-cat-found-after-four-years---but-family-cant-be-told-who/

 

A spokesperson for Petlog, said: "A microchip registration should not be treated as proof of ownership, but rather it is a record of keepership - thta is, where a pet animal normally resides and is intended to assist reunification if the pet goes missing."

[hightail]

Here's a link to the legislation so you can see it only ever refers to the keeper rather than the owner

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2015/9780111125243

[momma]

Thank you for the link.

 

The worrying bit is where it states 'where the animal NORMALLY resides'. The puppy should NOT normally reside with the defendant.

 

I am hoping that the fact that the defendant does not have any Puppy Sales Contract, receipt, initial insurance document or KC papers will go in my favour. She has never once asked for the same, and if I bought a puppy or dog I would insist upon at least a receipt.

 

The cheeky beggar has at the end of her defence requested that the judge orders me to hand over to her the puppy's vet record, copy of her 5 Generation Pedigree and her kennel Club registration papers. Hell will freeze over first!

[hightail]

The pup normally resided with you, belonged to you as you are the breeder and was removed from it's normal residence when you weren't present by deceiving your daughter.