Amazon Credit Card free Voucher

jinkssick

I understand from both sets of views.

to be honest, i congratulate you for recording and its something that i may want to do too in future conversations.

hchalk

Ten days after making an official complaint to the Halifax and being told I would hear within 5 days I have today phoned them up and been told that I will not now be being charged in relation to this issue!

Of course I have asked for confirmation of this in writing!

tee_pee_2

There is something pending on the online statement today for £17.03 but nothing else/ Halifax have also phone several times but as the card is in OH name they will not speak to me and he is always at work.

BigSofty

Well done HChalk. I hope we all end up with the same result. What are you going to do with the card now?

rsykes2000

Call_Centre_Monkey wrote:

To the person who recorded the call, it is illegal to do so without asking permission first.

Sorry, but that's wrong.
The RIPA act (2000) http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/en2000/2000en23.htm says basically that as long as one party is in the knowledge that the call is being recorded, it is fully legitimate to do. So as the person who did the recording knew this was being done and they were using their own home telephone, they did not have to inform the other party. There is no criminal liability involved *at all*, therefore no illegal act has been committed. The only possibility is of a civil action being taken by the other party *if the recording is released to a 3rd party without their permission* - this has patently not taken place as the only time the recording has been played is to the other party involved.

Paul_Herring

rsykes2000 wrote:

Call_Centre_Monkey wrote:

To the person who recorded the call, it is illegal to do so without asking permission first.

Sorry, but that's wrong.
The RIPA act (2000) http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/en2000/2000en23.htm says basically that as long as one party is in the knowledge that the call is being recorded, it is fully legitimate to do.

I cannot see where in that document it is permitted. Do you mean the following sections?

OPSI wrote:

24. Subsection (5) explains the circumstances in which interception of communications is lawful, and where the offences and the liability created in subsections (1), (2) and (3) do not therefore apply. These are where the interception is not authorised by an interception warrant yet falls into one of the exceptions described in Sections 3 or 4 (for example where all parties to the communication consent to the interception); where there is an interception warrant; or where an existing statutory power is used in order to obtain stored communications. The latter case covers circumstances where, for example, a person has been arrested in possession of a pager, and the police have reason to believe that the messages sent previously to that pager may be of assistance in the case. In this case they would be able to seek from a circuit judge an order under Schedule 1 to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 for the stored data to be produced.



25. Subsection (6) explains the circumstances in which interception falls outside the scope of the criminal offence introduced by subsection (2). This conduct attracts civil liability by virtue of subsection (3). Essentially, subsection (6) allows a person with a right to control a private telecommunication network to intercept on their own network without committing an offence. Examples of this type of activity are an individual using a second handset in a house to monitor a telephone call, and a large company in the financial sector routinely recording calls from the public in order to retain a record of transactions. Each of those cases may or may not give rise to civil liability, depending on the application of sections 3 and 4.

rsykes2000 wrote:

So as the person who did the recording knew this was being done and they were using their own home telephone, they did not have to inform the other party. There is no criminal liability involved *at all*, therefore no illegal act has been committed.

On the flip side, this arguement could well be used by the company. And record you without informing you of that fact. Why do companies have to inform you?

Paul_Herring

Found the relevant sections in the Act itself - both parties must consent : http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--b.htm#3

OPSI wrote:

Lawful interception without an interception warrant.
3. - (1) Conduct by any person consisting in the interception of a communication is authorised by this section if the communication is one which, or which that person has reasonable grounds for believing, is both-
(a) a communication sent by a person who has consented to the interception; and
(b) a communication the intended recipient of which has so consented.

Epoch

rsykes2000 wrote:

The only possibility is of a civil action being taken by the other party *if the recording is released to a 3rd party without their permission* - this has patently not taken place as the only time the recording has been played is to the other party involved.

Correct, Rsykes.

However, if KPD1 attempts to use the recording with e.g. Trading Standards to force Halifax to refund, s/he may then be liable to legal action. That said, I wouldn't have thought that Halifax would let it get to this stage.

The best use of this recording is to underline and confirm the inconsistencies in communication.

Epoch

rsykes2000

Paul_Herring wrote:

I cannot see where in that document it is permitted. Do you mean the following sections?
On the flip side, this arguement could well be used by the company. And record you without informing you of that fact. Why do companies have to inform you?

They have to inform you as they may in future use the recording to play to a 3rd party. If you are just recording it yourself and don't intend to play to a 3rd party, then you are arguably OK.

I think this paragraph at the top of the page http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--b.htm#2 would seem to indicate is is lawful for you to record for your own purpose :

" (2) For the purposes of this Act, but subject to the following provisions of this section, a person intercepts a communication in the course of its transmission by means of a telecommunication system if, and only if, he-

(a) so modifies or interferes with the system, or its operation,
(b) so monitors transmissions made by means of the system, or
(c) so monitors transmissions made by wireless telegraphy to or from apparatus comprised in the system,
as to make some or all of the contents of the communication available, while being transmitted, to a person other than the sender or intended recipient of the communication."

So to me that reads that as long as it's to be used by you, you can do it, as it's not legally classified as 'interception' (and the whole basis of RIPA) as long as you don't play it to a 3rd party.

hchalk

Hi Bigsofty,

I only have another couple of months interest free left on this card so I will be moving ASAP.

And this time I will be printing off, reading and recording everything!