Hi

Have been reading with interest about the issues around the recording of telephone calls. Apparently, to use these as evidence in court you would need the permission of the person/organisation you are recording (confirmed by Home Office). Obviously, no DCA is going to do this. I have heard that a transcript of the conversation can be used as evidence.

Does anyone know how this can be achieved or in what circumstances transcipts can be used as evidence.

Has anyone had experience of this?

I'd like to see a source for the information which you are giving in relation to the need to obtain permission.

The position so far as I am aware is that a private individual can record calls for his own purposes without permission.

Using the material as evidence in a court claim falls within this.

If you want to use recordings, you would need to inform the court beforehand, provide equipment and transcripts of the calls

Hi

I sent an enquiry to a general info e-mail address on the Home Office website ([email protected]:). I've copied and pasted their replies below:-

Me - "

Dear Sir/Madam

I would like to know if it is legal to use a taped telephone conversation as evidence in Court? I am currently being harrassed by a debt collection agency and understand that I am able to record their telephone conversations for my own personal use. Does this extend to being able to use this as evidence in Court?

Any advice you can give would be greatly appreciated.

1st reply -

It is legal to use a taped conservation in court, if you obtain consent from the other party ( in this case the debt collection agency) you are recording that you are intending to use it as evidence in court.

Hence it will be illegal to use the taped conversation as evidence in court if consent from the other party is not obtained.

Regards

Commsdata

and "Further to my enquiry, do I need consent for a transcript of the conversation to be used as evidence in court?"

Their reply - "

Yes consent would need to be obtained to use a transcript of the conversation as evidence in court, as the same principles apply.

Regards

Commsdata

I'm not actuall being harrassed by a DCA at the moment but am 'preparing the ground' as I think I might be and will be recording calls if I am. Just wanted to be absolutely shure of the legal position in case this kicks off.

I'm suprised. I don't agree with them.

I don't think that they have reearched it.

I would be interesting to ask them for the authority for their opinion

Many years ago, before my kids became of age, I have used transripts in Court in relation to matrimonial proceedings. (Namely she will claim harrassment when I go to collect my children when it was not true. She would then stop contact on the basis of her claims). I provided transcripts and offered the playback of the recording. The judge accepted it and reinstated my contact.

IF you phone anybody and as soon as the phone is answered and it states that "This telephone call may be recorded for training or monitoring purposes" then you automatically have the right to make your own recordings.

Then again, in my humble opinion, UNLESS you are after tricking somebody into saying something (e.g. make them so angry that for example they will swear at you so you claim abuse) why do you not tell them that the conversation is being recorded???????

If I have nothing to hide and they have nothing to hide then it should be ok. Or are we becoming close to Big Brother and the Secret Service?

The Home Office is wrong! You can record a telephone conversation at any time for your own personal records. You are under no obligation to tell the other party that you are recording the call.

However, there are issues when entering the content of the call into evidence. It is permissable to issue a transcript of the call in evidence, though you may prefer to initially enter it as your version of the discussion. If the other party denies the evidence, simply state you have a full transcript of an actual recording made for your own records. Any judge worth his/her salt would admit the transcript and/or recording as evidence to clarify issues. In this respect, there are no hard and fast rules about the use of recordings in court where the other party wasn't informed of the recording in advance, so you do need to be careful about how you introduce it. It's about intent, especially if you're goading people to say something they otherwise wouldn't.

The continuing confusion surrounding this relates to the old telecommunications act, where it was illegal to literally attach a recording device to the PSTN (public service telephone network), ie. by hard wiring. If you're using an acoustic bud or Skype or some other non-invasive system, you have no problem.

It's a bit like CCTV (without the civil liberties issues) - if you're not doing anything wrong, what are you afraid of? If DCAs want to lie then deny it, they'd better look out!

Thank you for taking the time to reply xx

I agree basically you can use them and basically it is after all the judge who has control of his/her court re wether they see them as valid, well works for judge judgy and I am her fan:lol: (I know that does not count in UK:madgrin:)

Thing is I also agree with when ringing them unless tricking them if they give an experience of themselves which is not acceptable, then more fool them, for instance ringing orange sales and the way they behaved when you could almost taste their keeness to get the sale, that they chose to behave that way and chose to in my opinion mis leed.

Thanks again, any further responses always welcome xx

Orange need to put their 'listening ears' on that is is not acceptable to mislead if they dont want an annoying customer like me who wont accept being ripped off, truecall rules xx

I agree donkey xx If doing nowt wrong why worry about cctv or being recorded:wink:

Late to be contributing to this thread but have just had surprising and fascinating webchat with ICO regarding this.

The reason I contacted them was because a retailer who sold me dud product got difficult when I mentioned that I was recording the call. They refused to speak to me.

Since I was recording the call in order to be able to use the contents in what promises to be a future dispute, I didn't want to be hampered in my use of the content of the conversation so I went to the ICO in order to ask whether they had the right to 'refuse' to talk to me if I was recording (as they do) the conversation.

I use an app on Skype which is simple and saves the agony and time spent on SAR.

It turns out that this kind of issue falls under the domestic purposes exemption of the DP act.

If you, as a consumer, record a conversation with a retailer's customer service dept for use in dispute resolution (ie to prove what was said) you are entitled

a) to do it without informing the other side, on the assumption that they have already advised you that the call is being recorded by them.

b) use its contents in negotiations with the company in question and with any legal adviser/court the dispute goes forward to.

This was a revelation for me and I believe a lot of us have been ignorant of this.

If you want a copy of the web chat, please pm me.

All the best,

Great info, thank you. Interpretations change as time goes on, so what the ICO thought years ago might be different now. This is an excellent example.

What I have seen done by a solicitor friend was the following.

His client had recorded telephone calls without telling the other party (a company that records calls when you contact them)

When the solicitor issued court papers he asked the company for the recordings.

Of course they misplaced these recordings, so the solicitor wrote back and informed them that his client had recorded the calls and asked permission to use them in court.

The company refused permission.

The solicitor in his client statement quoted the important bits of the conversations word for word.

Once in court the company denied that such things were ever said but the solicitor pointed out to the judge that recordings were available, the company didn't give permission to produce them in evidence and the company had misplaced their own recordings.

The judge allowed the recordings to be played.

At this point the company solicitor asked for 15 minutes break in which the settled the claim outside the courtroom.

So my understanding is that a 'cute' way to produce the recordings in court is to ask permission from the other party, if they refuse then you can use their exact words to make a statement of facts.

If this statement is challenged in court you can advise the judge that a full recording is available but the other party refused permission to produce it in evidence.

Even if the judge decides not to allow the recording, he/she will be inclined to believe that the other party is at fault, otherwise they would have no objection to the recording.

Exactly, king12345.

This kind of thing must be an increasingly frequent issue in disputes.

This whole thing started for me 5 years ago when a bank (my bank........) gave a rate for a forex transaction that I agreed to over the phone and that was then 'not used' (to my detriment, obviously).

It was all 'deny, deny, deny' with the bank; long story short, I knew exactly what had been said but when I asked for the copy of the recording it had been 'lost'.

You don't want to hear the rest of the story, it went on for 8 months, but what it truly brought home to me was the absolute helplessness of the customer/client/consumer in the face of institutionalised bad faith. It's not the exception - it's the new normal.

Therefore I systematically record my calls, both inbound and outbound. However, the issue of 'usability' has always been there as a stress factor. The simple solution of announcing that you (also) are recording the call can work against you also, as I and others have experienced.

Both the discussion with the ICO and your very pertinent and useful post help confirm my belief that recording ones calls is an essential precaution to take.

Thanks very much for your relevant and interesting post.