My overall Benefits journey from 2013 to date - and on going still!!

[Invalidation]

In other words, you're arguing I'm wrong but can't show it and muddy the waters instead. Ok. Please yourself. One might wonder why you would want to try and put people off their rights on a consumer-orientated site, but hey-ho, whatever, I think I'll let the actions do the talking.

 

No Sir, On the contrary. I made the original statement that "There is no Legal Right to record on Private Property" YOU were the one arguing I was wrong, but cant prove it, trying to muddy the waters with the irrelevant DPA. You continue harping on but have yet to provide one tiny piece of evidence to support your opinion.

You are stating there IS a Law permitting recording on Private property, OK fine then lets see it, as it would defeat my statement 100% but you have failed to do so.

 

But you chose to be rude and abusive without anything to back up your abuse and to give yourself an air of smartness. It Failed.

You were wrong, admit it.

 

I have and always will encourage people to covertly record their assessments, but I try to do so pointing out the pitfalls if they get caught.

 

I trust your apology will be forthcoming?

[Nystagmite]

Surely if they argued you can't record because it's private property, are you then able to argue that recording is a reasonable adjustment under the Equalities Act 2010? Many of us need to record due to our disabilities.

[Guest]

exactly Nystagmite, I really think the only issue is that they don't want to be recorded for obvious reasons, and any way to put obstacle in the way is used, and I don't get that if we are allowed to have it recorded by requesting this in advance, and get there to find they don't have equipment etc, why cant we record it ourselves, whatever the law says or not....the issue for me is that we have a right to have it recorded and if they mess up their end there is no reason why we cant do it ourselves, its private property whoever records it surely

[citizenB]

Did Chris Grayling not give people the right to record these sessions?

[Invalidation]

Surely if they argued you can't record because it's private property, are you then able to argue that recording is a reasonable adjustment under the Equalities Act 2010? Many of us need to record due to our disabilities.

The problem is, there are no legal rights actually permitting recording on Private Property. If there were I would be on it quicker than a fly on cow poo.

I would suspect they would refuse because they would say the assessor refused.

But where would reasonable adjustments fit in? Once could claim that if one were deaf or blind then a recording would help them and I suspect if that were brought up then ATOS would be pretty daft refusing to record the assessment. But once again its on private property and its up to an assessor to agree to being recorded.

Recording someone anywhere even on open public land is 100% dependant on that person agreeing to be recorded. If they refuse they can simply walk away. Oh yes you can follow them and record but that would then constitute harassment.

 

Once again I would urge every person going to an assessment to attempt to record their assessment. But dont be surprised if caught, if the assessment is terminated and booked down as Failure to attend. YES we all know that we can demand a re-assessment as we did attend, but a lot of people just arent up to standing up for their rights and jumping through hoops which is what the DWP and ATOS rely upon. They want us to fail.

[Invalidation]

Did Chris Grayling not give people the right to record these sessions?

No he gave people the right to ask for them, but ATOS dont want to as it shows up faults in their system.

Though I personally think its the DWP that dont want them recorded.

[antone]

Did Chris Grayling not give people the right to record these sessions?

 

Yes he did, but the DWP and Atos have taken the view that they can insist on using their own specialist equipment, or if a claimant wishes to use their own equipment, it must meet the same standards. Then we find Atos insisting that they don't really have too many such machines, resulting in delays getting appointments booked. And of course, claimants can't really use their own equipment since not too many of them have a police-standard dual-deck CD recorder lying around at home.

 

We've also heard cases where claimants who try to insist on their right to a recorded assessment are being told "tough, we can't record it and if you don't show up on xx date for an unrecorded medical, we'll tell the DWP you didn't show up."

 

So a lot of the discussion centres now on whether covert recording is practical, legal and whether the results are admissible at a Tribunal if it comes to that.

[citizenB]

Why not simply make a complaint to Chris Grayling !!

[Guest]

you took the words right out of my mouth citizenB

[SWLABR9]

Because he's behind most of this and also he's no longer at the DWP, he's, er (rubs eyes) Minister for Justice.

[Guest]

oh fgs......musical chairs and madhatters tea party come to mind with this lot

[silverfox1961]

Just found this article. While it doesn't deal specifically with ATOS it does shed light on the recording in private places-Hospitals or doctors surgery being the one here

 

http://www.hsj.co.uk/resource-centre/best-practice/secret-audio-recordings-know-the-law/1332221.article

[Guest]

which atos and dwp are no doubt aware.....so then that just leaves the question why any assessor would refuse.....I think we know the answer to that one

[antone]

Because he's behind most of this and also he's no longer at the DWP, he's, er (rubs eyes) Minister for Justice.

 

Which means, of course, that he's now responsible for the Tribunals Service. Great stuff.

[SWLABR9]

Of course. Grayling said when they got in that by the end of this government no-one would be left on benefits which suggests they've had all this planned for years.

[nolegion]

The link kindly just provided by silverfox may lead you to a site where you will need to register to gain access to the full text.

 

Happily, ErikaPNP obtained and quoted the article in another forum some while ago. It was written by a solictor called Jennifer Mellani and published in a medical journal back in 2008:-

 

"A patient who makes a secret audio recording of a consultation with a clinician is unlikely to be breaking any privacy or data protection laws. Jennifer Mellani explains how good communication and trust building can avoid the anxiety of this happening in the first place

 

What should health service managers do if a patient secretly records a consultation session with their doctor or nurse? This is an unusual and unpleasant scenario, but one clinicians may find themselves facing.

 

The prevailing perception is that such an act is bound to be unlawful and that clinical professionals can rightfully object, but the legal position is quite different.

 

Generally, the Data Protection Act will apply in situations involving processing personal information and it has become second nature for clinicians to consider their legal obligations under the act every time they process a patient’s

personal data. But where a patient decides to record a conversation with their clinician about their health condition, it is unlikely the record will contain anything other than the patient’s own personal information.

 

Personal matters

Section 36 of the act states that personal data processed by an individual for the purpose of his or her personal, family or household affairs, including recreational purposes, is exempt from the data protection principles and requirements. So even if the data recorded by the patient relates to the clinician, if it was made by the patient for the sole purpose of keeping a record of the meeting, the act will not apply.

 

Therefore, the fact that the patient did not seek the clinician’s consent to the audio recording will not amount to a breach of data protection law. So could clinicians rely on privacy laws instead? Only if the recorded information relates to the clinician’s personal and family life and affairs and such information is disclosed without justification. This is highly unlikely in the scenario of a patient audio recording a consultation, as the conversation will relate solely to the patient. The recording might be intrusive and could even be perceived as an act of surveillance, but it is not unlawful under privacy laws.

 

So if clinical professionals cannot rely on the Data Protection Act or their privacy rights, what can they do? The most obvious answer and something that is second nature to good clinicians, is to ensure trust is established between themselves and their patients. Simply providing reassurance and attention to patients could eliminate the anxiety that could lead to a consultation being recorded. Another solution is to adopt a policy whereby patients who wish to record a session will need to seek the permission of the clinical professional caring for them and explain the reasons for the recording. Both routes focus on improving communication and trust and may prevent any such recording in the first place."

[**Margaret**]

:Health Service Journal:

 

The article referred to by :Silverfox1961: at #1057 is already available on CAG.

 

#12 at http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?256545-Audio-recording-your-consultations-with-NHS-doctors-nbsp

 

Many of the contributions to that thread are equally applicable to this one.

 

Margaret.

 

Too late was the cry! Or praps not? Most claimants of employment n support allowance use the National Health Service.

Edited February 16, 2013 by **Margaret**

[Crazy Diamond]

No Sir, On the contrary. I made the original statement that "There is no Legal Right to record on Private Property" YOU were the one arguing I was wrong, but cant prove it, trying to muddy the waters with the irrelevant DPA. You continue harping on but have yet to provide one tiny piece of evidence to support your opinion.

The DPA is anything but irrelevant, it's what the 50+ pages of this thread are about! and contrary to what you seems to believe, I have submitted link after link, case law after case law to support my stance.

 

You are stating there IS a Law permitting recording on Private property, OK fine then lets see it, as it would defeat my statement 100% but you have failed to do so.

Wrong again. I have said that there is NO law preventing such, and asked you to provide such law if you knew one and it had escaped me. Still waiting.

 

But you chose to be rude and abusive without anything to back up your abuse and to give yourself an air of smartness. It Failed.

Where have I been rude? I challenged your mistaken beliefs, that's not being rude.

 

You were wrong, admit it.

I will when you provide the case law as requested above.

 

I have and always will encourage people to covertly record their assessments, but I try to do so pointing out the pitfalls if they get caught.

Wow, I doubt anyone could have guessed that from your postings!

 

I trust your apology will be forthcoming?

Because....? You mislead people, cause disruption on the thread and confuse people further, and you want an apology? Is that from the same rule book where recording on private property because you said so?

[Guest]

I think it was a comment from Margaret that said to be sure to put on the esa form that in the event of an assessment being deemed necessary that a recorded assessment is requested....i might also add on there that in the event of atos not having the equipment on the day then i will record myself, and they should note this when arranging the assessor......that is prior notice on both counts and if an assessor doesn't wish to be recorded, or for the sake of awkwardness from them, they are welcome to find an assessor who is prepared for that, and no b/s that they didn't know or weren't aware....copy of form kept by myself. pipe smoke n choke.

[Invalidation]

The DPA is anything but irrelevant, it's what the 50+ pages of this thread are about! and contrary to what you seems to believe, I have submitted link after link, case law after case law to support my stance.

 

You know I posted a response to every one of your boring assumptions, insults and misunderstood opinions. Then I felt sorry for other people having to put up with your rubbish a second time.

 

So heres the info for you which seems to be the basis of all your Misunderstood claims.

The DPA is not connected in any way shape or form with the Legalitites of actually recording. It is concerned in the main about what happens with that Data AFTER it is recorded. If no Data is recorded.....No DPA requirements. You seem to wrongly assume that the DPA gives you a Legal right to record. IT DOESNT. In this instance specifically you have a little knowledge that you dont understand and it has become dangerous, as vulnerable people may be reading it and believe the misstruths you have been posting.

Try going into a Court, a Councill Meeting, Houses of Parliaments and many other public buildings and demanding you have a Legal Right to Record according to the DPA and see where that gets you.

 

If indeed if you have this alleged information providing people with a Legal Right to record on Private property what keeps you from telling everyone?, you boast about allegedly helping people yet you wont tell them all about this alleged Law that Permits them to record on Private Property, why are you keeping it to yourself? why arent you shouting it from the rafters, dont you want disabled people to know about this alleged Legal Right to record?.

No more insults, no more waffle and bluster, we all want to know.

WHAT AND WHERE IS THIS LAW GIVING US PERMISSION TO RECORD ON PRIVATE PROPERTY

Untill you post that, your credibility is zero. QED

[nolegion]

Jeepers, chaps – please don't let this valuable thread be distracted, or even terminated, by a brawl.

 

I want it to be going in two years time when the DWP has been flattened in court (but rmw, dilizjo and starry-E still haven't had their WCAs).

 

Crazy-D. I trust you know where I, and I expect others, think the legal merits of the argument to date lie (and soundly), but I wonder - if it's not too late – whether you could be persuaded to leave it at that and not respond to the previous post.

 

Of course, I acknowledge I have absolutely no right to request this. I just hope it might be for 'the greater good.'

 

Starry-E. Thank you for the ref. to the thread I started in the NHS forum over two years ago. Here's another link from it:-

http://www.mddus.com/mddus/news-and-media/media-centre/may-2012/covert-recording-risks.aspx

[Crazy Diamond]

 

Crazy-D. I trust you know where I, and I expect others, think the legal merits of the argument to date lie (and soundly), but I wonder - if it's not too late – whether you could be persuaded to leave it at that and not respond to the previous post.

 

Of course, I acknowledge I have absolutely no right to request this. I just hope it might be for 'the greater good.'

 

 

http://www.mddus.com/mddus/news-and-media/media-centre/may-2012/covert-recording-risks.aspx

 

No worries, I had already decided to ignore it anyway, for precisely that same reason.

[silverfox1961]

I think this thread may be confusing overt and covert recordings. Anyone has the right to refuse to be recorded-if they know about it. (obviously not if you are being recorded under caution) The difference is that with a covert recording, the assessor has no knowledge of this and as such cannot object.

 

The recording itself cannot be used without the assessors permission (which I would say would be unlikely forthcoming) however a transcript could be made and so long as the assessors name is redacted, I would see no legal 'wrong' as there would be no personal information other than the claimants. The assessor is unlikely to offer personal information in any interview and if they did, that could also be redacted from the transcript.

 

As the recording would be for personal use, the DPA would not come into play however, if the recording was passed to a third party then s36 would come into play.

 

Council meetings are already recorded, either physically or by a stenographer. Courts I would imagine are covered by legal privilege and of course the contempt laws could also be used.

 

A few years ago, I worked as a security guard in shopping centre and an elderly couple were taking photographs and were asked to stop as they didn't have permission. They were quite openly taking the pictures but if I were to do the same but covertly, they wouldn't know about it and therefore not be able to do anything about it.

[Crazy Diamond]

Anyone has the right to refuse to be recorded-if they know about it. (obviously not if you are being recorded under caution) The difference is that with a covert recording, the assessor has no knowledge of this and as such cannot object.

Yes.

 

The recording itself cannot be used without the assessors permission

Sorry, that is not true.

however a transcript could be made and so long as the assessors name is redacted, I would see no legal 'wrong' as there would be no personal information other than the claimants.

Yes and no. The transcript is actually because most courts are not well equipped to deal with anything not on paper, they're a bit behind like that. Also, when submitting evidence, a copy had to be sent to the other side as well so a transcript is best anyway, and letting the courts know that the recording is available if they wish to verify it.

 

Removing the assessor's name could in fact prejudice the transcript as it no longer would be a true copy. Either way, it's up to the other side to object if they want to, not really our concern.

 

 

The assessor is unlikely to offer personal information in any interview and if they did, that could also be redacted from the transcript.

Indeed, and again, that would be up to them to object in the first place.

 

As the recording would be for personal use, the DPA would not come into play however, if the recording was passed to a third party then s36 would come into play.

Not quite. The exemption still applies if the recording is used for things relating to one's personal affairs, which a tribunal clearly is, so a recording is still admissible by the courts.

 

A few years ago, I worked as a security guard in shopping centre and an elderly couple were taking photographs and were asked to stop as they didn't have permission. They were quite openly taking the pictures but if I were to do the same but covertly, they wouldn't know about it and therefore not be able to do anything about it.

Precisely.

[Guest]

Sorry if I am a bit dim here...just my thoughts. As my assessment time is looming, and I fully expect Incapacity gone and a transfer to either ESA if am lucky, or JSA if not so. Rather than declare myself unfit and left with no money I would be effectively forced to say otherwise? despite my diagnosis of illessess and info given to atossers/dwp.

 

I haven't seen the JSA forms, but would hopefully find somewhere to write my illnesses down, and that as atos/dwp genuinely feel I am fit to work then I feel I have no choice but to comply. My opinion on it and medical reports don't count..however when I then get pushed into work or whatever treats they have in store and I totally crack up, what then?

 

I would hate anyone to be in a dreadful state but wonder just how long it will be before atossers/dwp are sued, there must be some legal way to make them pay if they hound an unfit person in this way, and take all money away to force them into work they are not fit for, and force them into saying they are......is this really the UK? or have I been transported to an alien planet?