Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • just to be clear here..... the DVLA do not send letters if a drivers licence address differs from any car's V5C that shows the same driver as it's registered keeper.
    • sorry she is a private individual, the cars are parking on her land. she can clamp the cars. only firms were outlawed from doing it bazza. thats what the victims of people dumping cars on their drives near airports did and they didn't not get prosecuted.    
    • The DVLA keeps two records of you. One as a driver and one for your car. If they differ you might find out in around a month when they will send you a reminder as well as to your other half for their car. If you receive nothing then you can be fairly sure that you were tailgating though wouldn't explain why they didn't pick up your car on one of drive past their cameras. However even if you do get a PCN later then your situation will not change. The current PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 which is the main law that covers private parking. It doesn't comply for two reasons. 1. Section 9 [2][a] states  (2)The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; The PCN states 47 minutes which are the arrival and departure times not the time you were actually parked. if you subtract the time you took to drive from the entrance. look for a parking place  park in it perhaps having to manoeuvre a couple of times to fit within the lines and unload the children reloading the children getting seat belts on  driving to the exit stopping for cars pedestrians on the way you may well find that the actual time you were parked was quite likely to be around ten minutes over the required time.  Motorists are allowed a MINIMUM of ten minutes Grace period [something that the rogues in the parking industry conveniently forget-the word minimum] . So it could be that you did not overstay. 2] Sectio9 [2][f]  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN does not include the words in brackets and in 2a the Act included the word "must". Another fail. What those failures mean is that MET cannot transfer the liability to pay the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable which is why we recommend our members not to appeal. It is so easy to reveal who was driving by saying "when I parked the car" than "when the driver parked the car".  As long as they don't know who was driving they have little chance of winning in court. This is partly because Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. And because anyone with a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your cars. It is a shame that you are too far away to get photos of the car park signage. It is often poor and quite often the parking rogues lose in Court on their poor signage alone. I hope hat you can now relax and not panic about the PCN. You will receive many letters from Met, their unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors threatening you with ever higher amounts of money. The poor dears have never read the Act which states quite clearly that the maximum sum that can be charged is the amount on the signs. The Act has only been in force for 12 years so it may take a  few more years for the penny to drop.  You can safely ignore everything they send you unless or until they send you a Letter of Claim. Just come back to us if they do send one of those love letters to you and we will advise on a snotty letter to send them. In the meantime go on and enjoy your life. Continue reading other threads and if you do get any worrying letters let us know. 
    • Hopefully the ANPR cameras didn't pick up the two vehicles, but I don't think you're out of the woods just yet. MET's "work" consists of sending out hundreds of these invoices every week so yours might be a few days behind your partner's. There is also the matter of Royal Mail.  I once sold two second-hand books to someone on eBay.  Weirdly the cost of sending them separately was less than the cost of sending them in one parcel.  So to save a few bob I sent them seperately.  One turned up the next day.  One arrived after four days.  They were  sent from the same post office at the same time! But let's hope I'm being too pessimistic. Please update us of any developments.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Recording Telephone Conversations


intersimi
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1922 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

 

I have just tested it and I can record telephone conversations on my mobile phone. I have a Sony Ericsson 800i. I was sure I could do it on one of my older phones too.

 

Basically, once the conversation has started, press 'more' key, then scroll down to 'record' and press it.

 

:)

regards,

 

InterSimi

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know how the law treats recording telephone conversations in this regard? Can I use it as evidance? Do I have to inform them that I am recording? Can I upload it here and still use it in court?

regards,

 

InterSimi

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you do, but will check. Everyone you call tells you that your call be be

recorded.

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing to stop you recording a call as long as you do not tamper with equipmemt which is not yours i.e. BT telephone lines.

There is no need to give warnings that the call is being recorded.

There is no confidentiality in the call unless you have agreed with the other person in advance or there are other circumstances which make it clear that the conversation is subject to a duty of confidenatiality.

If you overhear someone else's call which is clearly of a confidential nature in circumstances which are clearly intended to be confidential then there is confidence in the recording.

 

There have been suggestions in other threads on this forum that warnings must be given. This is wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a coincidence:-

 

Consent issue

 

It is not illegal for individuals to tape conversations providing the recording is for their own use, under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA).

 

It is a civil, not criminal, matter if a conversation or email has been recorded and shared unlawfully.

 

And, legally, recording or monitoring are only prohibited where some of the contents of the communication are made available to a third party.

 

If a person intends to make the conversation available to a third party, they must first obtain the consent of the person being recorded.

 

 

Source and full story:- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4800172.stm

 

However, I disagree that permission must first be obtained in order to use the recording where there is no obligation of confidence. Furthermore, there is no confidence in iniquity. See my post on this point in Legalities at

http://www.bankactiongroup.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=152

Link to post
Share on other sites

If a person intends to make the conversation available to a third party, they must first obtain the consent of the person being recorded.

 

So basically, I can make the recording without warning, but If I wish to share it with everyone here, I must obtain concent.

 

I think, that as it could be construded as training material, that If I were to say "I am recording this conversation for training or legal purposes" then I am covered to post it here.

 

Plus, as no Bank representative is allowed to view this forum under the forums Terms and Conditions, then I am covered :)

regards,

 

InterSimi

Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

You can make a recording and you can share it with everyone without permission if the circumstances are such that the contents of the conversation are not confidential.

You will have to look at the circumstances of each case.

 

I would not give a warning under any circumstances.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there not another issue of whether any statements recorded would be admissible in court?

 

I am assuming this based, amongst other things, on the fact that NOTHING you say to a police officer can be used against you unless you have first been cautioned, in other words, the warning that what you are about to say will be recorded (in one way or another).

 

Of course, this is criminal law, civil law may well be different.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Statement to police officers are quite a different matter and relate to the right not to be obliged to incriminate yourself.

 

If a recording has been obtained by lawful means then I see no basis for excluding it from evidence in court - especially if it contains evidence of iniquity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI (it is in the Lloyds scetion)

 

I have given them the warning of recording the conversation for "training and monitoring purposes". Both people were quite happy to agree, although the Indian call center lady was taken back a bit.

regards,

 

InterSimi

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chief Constable of the Met has been found to record phone conversations with various departments and officials. (Sky news today).

 

The also stated that there is no legal comeback for recording a conversation, even without warning *as long as the recording is for personal use*.

 

Now what constitutes personal use is another thing.

 

 

As another point. I would imagine that if you told a bank remployee that you were recordig the conversation they would just refuse to speak to you. I may be wrong tho.

Paul

 

Halifax Status

LBA Sent 11/04/06

1/3 offered by phone 20/04/06 - Rejected

BCT Status

Statements Recieved 31/03/06

Capital One Status

Recieved Lie/Reply 24/04/06

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always thought that if you record a call without telling someone then it isn't admissable as evidence in a court case.

 

Also, I've recorded calls to First Direct before and the 2 advisors that I did it with (oh er matron!) were fine with that, and they understood my need to do so.

If you found this post useful, please click on the "scales" icon in the bottom left of my post and say so!

 

The opinions of this post are those of monkey_uk and do not constitute sound legal advice. I am not a lawyer.

--

 

Halifax Unlawful Bank Charges: S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) Sent 28/02/07 - CC Statement's rcv'd 18/04/07 Bank a/c statements rcv'd 19/04/07

 

 

 

First Direct Unlawful Bank Charges: Settled in Full 12/05/06 | £2235.50

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chief Constable of the Met has been found to record phone conversations with various departments and officials. (Sky news today).

 

The also stated that there is no legal comeback for recording a conversation, even without warning *as long as the recording is for personal use*.

 

Now what constitutes personal use is another thing.

 

 

As another point. I would imagine that if you told a bank remployee that you were recordig the conversation they would just refuse to speak to you. I may be wrong tho.

 

Yep, you are wrong. They were completely fine saying yes.

 

I believe that, just like a policemans notepad, the notepad itself is inabmissable as evidance, but the police man can use his notepad to read from the "jog" his memory in court.

 

Likewise the recording for "personal use" is just that. You can record any conversation you like as long as you don't show anyone.

 

I informed the bank that I will be using it for "training, monitoring and legal reasons". Hence I can post it here as it could be regarded as training material and it can be used for other people in the legal process as to prove no manual intervention

regards,

 

InterSimi

Link to post
Share on other sites

Likewise the recording for "personal use" is just that. You can record any conversation you like as long as you don't show anyone.

 

Wrong, sorry.

The situation is as I have said all the way though this thread and others.

If you have some authority to the contrary then please disclose it. Otherwise your information is unhelpful to the other users.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a question of stepping on toes. I am happy to be shown that I am wrong as I can adjust my thinking and change my opinions.

 

I am aware of the law of trespass to property and of the legislation relating to the interception of telecommunications. I am also aware of the law relating to the legal/eqitable duty of confidence. I am also aware of the state of the law relating to privacy in this country.

 

From these factors I have arrived at certain conclusions as to the recording of conversations and the usefulness of those recordings.

 

You are very clearly of a different opinion. Please will you let us have the authority for your view. It is very important.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is just that I have found these:

 

http://security.homeoffice.gov.uk/news-and-publications1/publication-search/ripa-cop/interception-cop?view=Html

 

(see the last section - without a warrant)

 

and also this:

 

http://www.retellrecorders.co.uk/legal/home.htm

 

The key piece of information for me seems to be this quote from the above link:

 

Can I record telephone conversations on my home phone?

 

Yes. The relevant law, RIPA, does not prohibit individuals from recording their own communications provided that the recording is for their own use. Recording or monitoring are only prohibited where some of the contents of the communication - which can be a phone conversation or an e-mail - are made available to a third party, ie someone who was neither the caller or sender nor the intended recipient of the original communication. For further information see the Home Office website where RIPA is posted.

 

Do I have to let people know that I intend to record their telephone conversations with me?

 

No, provided you are not intending to make the contents of the communication available to a third party. If you are you will need the consent of the person you are recording.

 

To me it seems quite cut and dry, that unless both parties of the telephone conversation agree to it, you are not allowed to disclose the telephone conversation to anyone else. So me informing them that It is used for training,monitoring and legal purposes covers me.

 

I understand what you have said Bankfodder, but you must understand my situation. I have a moderator of a forum telling me one thing and I am reading an article from the homeoffice telling me another. In either case, it does not harm to tell them that I am recording.

 

Just tell me to shut up, if I am going on, or out of order.

regards,

 

InterSimi

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that of coure, if you warn people that you cover yourself completely. It is a failsafe thing to do. I don't think that it is necessary. However, thanks for your sources, I'll try to go through them carefully and let you know what I think.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. The relevant law, RIPA, does not prohibit individuals from recording their own communications provided that the recording is for their own use. Recording or monitoring are only prohibited where some of the contents of the communication - which can be a phone conversation or an e-mail - are made available to a third party, ie someone who was neither the caller or sender nor the intended recipient of the original communication. For further information see the Home Office website where RIPA is posted.

 

Do I have to let people know that I intend to record their telephone conversations with me?

 

No, provided you are not intending to make the contents of the communication available to a third party. If you are you will need the consent of the person you are recording.

 

 

To me it seems quite cut and dry, that unless both parties of the telephone conversation agree to it, you are not allowed to disclose the telephone conversation to anyone else. So me informing them that It is used for training,monitoring and legal purposes covers me.

 

 

 

.

There has to be an interception in the course of transmission and I am not convinced that there is

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well today on The Jeremy Vine show they were discussing the Ian Blair case about him recording the conversation with the attourney general. Apparently that's right that you can record a conversation with someone for your own use but if you want to then use it or let it be heard by someone else then you have to have the third party permission...and if Jeremy Vine says so then it must be true!

Thats 4 in the BAG!!!!

(£509.60amex..£396.31 Halifax credit card....£768.47+£783.99 Halifax current account)

so crooked they use a corkscrew for a ruler!(allegedly)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1922 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...