A few months before my father's death last year, a family member (who frequently helped him with his online banking activities and was therefore privy to his passwords etc) liquidated £145,000 of his shares and transferred the proceeds to themselves.

We believe that this was done without my father's knowledge or consent. Barclays advise us that they called to check that this activity was in fact authorised by my father. These phone calls were recorded by the bank.

We believe these voice recordings will prove the person claiming to be my father and authorising the transactions was, in fact, the family member who benefitted from these transfers.

Barclays has refused to provide copies of these voice recordings and has offered written transcripts of the recordings instead (these have not yet been delivered).

Clearly, identifying the person claiming to be my father from a written transcript will be impossible (apparently they answered security questions correctly). It is only by identifying the voice itself that will prove that fraud has taken place.

N.B. We have the legal power of attorney to act on behalf of our mother (these were joint accounts in both parents names), as she is mentally incapacitated by Alzheimers and unable to act on her own behalf.

Does anyone know of any way to compel the bank to provide these voice recordings?

Hi and Welcome to CAG

May be of interest....

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/bank-accounts/2761927/The-listening-banks.html

Regards

Andy

And......

Can the customer access the call recordings that the company makes?

A request can be made for a copy of the recording under data protection legislation and is known as a “subject access request”.

Under the Data Protection Act, you can make a subject access request from “data controllers”, which includes contact centres, for both paper and computer records, as well as for any related information.

Generally, you may have to purchase these recordings for £10, but it may be anything from £1 to £50 for health records and is just £2 for a request for your financial standing only from a credit reference agency.

https://www.callcentrehelper.com/data-protection-act-and-call-recording-57146.htm

Hi KR

Have you asked IN WRITING for a copy of the call or was this done by phone.

Did the "other person" have Power of Attorney for YF's financial affairs.

Who is Executor of YF's estate.

Hi Slick.

The other person did not have power of attorney.

We requested the recording via phone only.

Following info provided on this forum, I think we will hv to send a written request under GDPR.

My understanding is the bank will hv to comply.

Fingers crossed!

Thanks for the advice Andy.

Hi KR,

Keep all communication in writing only unless YOU are recording the calls with the bank, but letters are best. Send by RM Signed For delivery or get a free Cert of Posting at the PO Counter when posting.

I fear the problem you will have is the bank had no way of knowing they were NOT talking to YD if the other party knew the necessary security "answers". Unless the bank was aware that YD was not capable of managing his affairs because you'd put them on notice or had registered a Power of Attorney, you may be on shakey ground.

YM could threaten or take court action if she is Executrix of YD's estate but, given the amount involved, it would be allocated to the more expensive and risky (in terms of costs) Multi-Track tier of the County Court claim process.

According to the Telegraph article Andy linked in post #2:

"The Data Protection Act remains far from perfect. Consumers have a right to a transcript, but not to listen to the original recording."

Are the Telegraph correct?

They don't mention GDPR so I suspect they are referring to the previous DPA, but does GDPR make a difference?

Good question Ethel. According to the template provided on this forum for making a Subject Access Request (SAR), the Data Controller is required under the new GDPR to provide ALL relevant data, including recordings. We will make the bank aware of this as they have only offered a transcript. They may be unaware of the details in the GDPR and are operating according to the now superceded DPA (Data Protection Act). If anyone can confirm the GDPR requires them to provide copies of any voice recordings, that would be very helpful. My own research has proven inconclusive but strongly suggests voice recordings should, logically, fall under the blanket of 'all relevant data'.

Hi Slick. Thanks for the feedback. The fundamental issue is not that we believe the bank did anything wrong. They may have, but we doubt it. By calling to check the account holder had in fact authorised the transfers and receiving the necessary security answers, they would have properly discharged their duty of care.

However, the person we suspect was falsely claiming to be my father in order to authorise the transfers can (probably) only be identified by listening to the voice recording. The beneficiary of the transfers (who had no power of attorney to act on our father's behalf) and our father have distinctly different voices! This has been explained to the bank, but they insist they are only required to provide a transcript of these calls. However, under GDPR, we believe they are in fact obliged to provide copies of the recordings themselves. As I'm sure you can appreciate, these voice recordings may be 'the smoking gun' required to prove criminal fraud has occurred and enable us to pursue a criminal prosecution.

Hi KR,

You refer to a smoking gun and criminal fraud - have you reported this matter to the police ?

They may have more clout in securing any recording from the bank.

Hi KR,

 

You refer to a smoking gun and criminal fraud - have you reported this matter to the police ?

 

They may have more clout in securing any recording from the bank.

 

Hi Slick. We are hoping that the family member who perpetrated this fraud will agree to return the stolen money to our mother. Ultimately that is our primary goal and presenting them with undeniable proof may be enough to persuade them to do the right thing. If they continue to prove intransigent, then we are indeed planning to report the matter to the police, but this will be done only as a last resort. As you can imagine, we are reluctant to see a close family member prosecuted and convicted if there is a less extreme solution.

In addition, we took advice from a solicitor who warned us it was entirely possible the police would dismiss the matter as nothing more than a family squabble unless we could provide them with hard evidence to base an investigation on. Sadly the police do not always conduct themselves in as dynamic a way as is often depicted on TV!

Advice on this forum strongly suggests the bank is required under GDPR to provide the voice recordings we suspect will prove conclusively (the smoking gun) that fraud occurred. As GDPR is a very recent development, it's entirely possible the bank is not yet aware that they have this obligation. Our next step is to inform them of this obligation and see how they respond.

You can be sure that the bank is fully aware of its GDPR obligations

Hi BankFodder. You may well be correct. However, this matter was raised with Barclays shortly before the GDPR came into effect. At that time they were correct in their assertion that they only had an obligation to provide written transcripts. Yes, they have dragged their feet over those transcripts. No surprises there. Hopefully they only need a reminder/nudge from us to reassess their obligations and provide those voice recordings. We shall see.

I disagree that they didn't have an obligation to provide voice recordings. My understanding is that the only way they could avoid doing that would be to argue that it required disproportionate effort. Of course given that they then took the trouble to transcribe them – which would be much more difficult and more expensive, the disproportionality argument would be nonsense.

If you have better information that voice recordings are expressly excluded from the DPA rules, then please let me see it.

To be clear, I am simply reporting what we have been told by Barclays previously and do not personally claim any expertise in this matter. I only know that Barclays insisted they were not obliged to provide the voice recordings. At the time we felt compelled to accept their decision as the staff member we spoke to insisted he had no discretion in this matter and they were following the rules. As the transcripts may well provide evidence of fraud, we reluctantly decided to await this as a necessary first stage. Now we are aware of their actual obligations, I feel more confident that we can compel them to comply if it proves necessary.

Where you are clearly a very trusting individual. Bless!