The issue of recording telephone conversations

[simonjohn]

There have been a number of questions recently, regarding the legality of recording telephone conversations with the bank.

 

"So why not try this" !

 

In any letters of claim to your bank, at the bottom of your letter add a footnote, in the smallest font that is just about readable the words...

 

Please note that all calls maybe recorded for quality control and leagal purposes.

 

Then if there is any future court case against the bank you will be legally entitled to submit any phone conversation as evidence in your case, as you have already warned them that the call maybe recorded.

 

If the banks deny any such warning, then, so long as you have sent the letter by recorded post you can serve them a D.P.A request to prove that you have.

 

The banks do this every day, so its about time we used the same tactics

[Maxie]

An interesting point. Its not illegal to record phone call when you are a party to the call, but the problem would arise when you tried to introduce this call as evidence if the other party was unaware they were being recorded.

 

However, in law and espcially in trials there is such a thing as probative value versus prejudical value. What this means is that, although something shouls strictly not be admitted as evidence, if you can prove it is of sufficent authority to bring new substancial evidence the Judge can consider letting it in.

 

For example, if a bank used as defence 'we never chrage penalty charges, we expressly train our staff they are not and our staff would never say they were' etc etc.

 

then you produced a recording of NOT 1 but day, 10 banks staff telling you they are penalty charges you can ask the Judge to allow it as evidence. You'd need more than 1 or 2 member of staff as the bank would certainly succeeding in pursading the judge it was one or two 'rouge' operator who will receive immediate training etc. However, if you have 10 or so, that could be considered a pattern and the Judge would be more inclinded to allow it.

[Spiceskull]

probative value versus prejudical value

That's interesting. Am I to understand that in certain areas, the judge is allowed to exercise discretion in how some 'rules of process' are applied? I'm not suggesting that they are able to change the rules, but to determine, on a case by case basis, what part of the rules have a measure of flexibility. If so, then that is a good thing to bear in mind.

[Maxie]

That's interesting. Am I to understand that in certain areas, the judge is allowed to exercise discretion in how some 'rules of process' are applied? I'm not suggesting that they are able to change the rules, but to determine, on a case by case basis, what part of the rules have a measure of flexibility. If so, then that is a good thing to bear in mind.

 

The classic example - You on trial for murdering a man. You are actually innocent, but the evidence is stacked against you and your certain to loose. However, you find out that say, his wife did it, and she had a video tape in her house that shows she did it and not you. You break into the house and steal the tape.

 

Now, under strict rule of evidence as the evidence was obtained in an illegal way, on this occation by burglary it would not be admissable. However, as the tape clearly proves your innocence after viewing it privately the Judge would decide IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE the fact the the tape was obtained illegally is not as an important consideration as what probative value the evidence has - AND will have on the out come of the case. In this scenario, it would, lead to a directed verdict of not guilty.

 

Now, bank charges are not as exotic as murder! however, if they are, on oath swearing that there staff, who represent the company never refer to charges as penalties, and you can prove that do, this could cerainly be highly probate, "if it is your testimony is they, your staff do not make such represntations can you explain this" 1,2,3,4, etc they would have hard time doing so, Secondly, could it greatly alter the outcome of a case? This might be a sticking point, but in a civil case, when we are only looking for a balance or probability and especially in the 'relaxed' small claim court I think it could well be allowed.

[Spiceskull]

Maxie,

 

Great explanation, and as usual, clear and fully comprehensible. Thanks a lot!

[simonjohn]

This topic was closed on 03/07/19.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group