Recording of telephone conversation with permission

melb

thanks yes I have requested a copy of the recording 

robatwork

melb said:

thanks yes I have requested a copy of the recording 

This recording exists as much as a deity in the sky.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

OP the main thing is that, from what I can tell, this was either a distance contract or an off premises so the trader should provide a bunch of information via durable means and the burden of proof is on them to show they gave it.

One of the things they need to give is the price or how it is to be calculated, so hourly rates plus unknown for parts in this case. 

They may claim it was an urgent repair and not covered by the right to cancel, but the regs are broken into parts and the limitations regarding urgent repairs applies to Part 3 (right to cancel) but does not apply to Part 2 (information). 

Lets assume you don't have the right to cancel, without proof of an hourly rate being provided the CRA says:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/51/enacted

Reasonable price to be paid for a service

(1)This section applies to a contract to supply a service if—

(a)the consumer has not paid a price or other consideration for the service,

(b)the contract does not expressly fix a price or other consideration, and does not say how it is to be fixed, and

(c)anything that is to be treated under section 50 as included in the contract does not fix a price or other consideration either.

(2)In that case the contract is to be treated as including a term that the consumer must pay a reasonable price for the service, and no more.

(3)What is a reasonable price is a question of fact.

So the questions are, was his price reasonable? If not was what you instead paid reasonable?

Hourly rates for trades vary considerably, especially depending upon where in the country you live, so it seems a bit open ended to me but if you are being billed out of hours rates without being told what they are and what times they apply to then arguing you should be paying "in hours" rates would appear fair IMHO. 

OP do you what the difference is between the two rates this particular person charges?

Gavin83

robatwork said:

melb said:

thanks yes I have requested a copy of the recording 

This recording exists as much as a deity in the sky.

I doubt it exists either.

However there’s a lot I don’t really understand about this scenario. If the recording does exist and the OP didn’t agree to the charges why would the electrician wish to share it? After all, if it’s as the OP says it totally destroys the electricians case. By the same vein why wouldn’t the OP want everyone to hear this?

porkisnotmeat

Jenni_D said:

In very few cases are debts actually assigned ... a debt collector is simply being paid a fee to collect the alleged debt for the original claimant. Assigned debts need to be formally assigned, and the debtor must be informed (in writing) of the assignment.

No, it's the other way around actually.

It's rare for a creditor to pay a debt collector to chase their debt as it is typically cheaper to pay someone within your own company to do it.

Most debt ends up in the hands of debt buyers, after the original creditor has washed their hands of it.

Jenni_D

You may be right with your last sentence, but that in no way negates my last sentence.   Assigned debts must be notified to the debtor.

However, many debt collection companies offer a No Collect, No Fee policy, so it costs companies nothing to get an external DC to do the chasing for them.

robatwork

Gavin83 said:

robatwork said:

melb said:

thanks yes I have requested a copy of the recording 

This recording exists as much as a deity in the sky.

I doubt it exists either.

However there’s a lot I don’t really understand about this scenario. If the recording does exist and the OP didn’t agree to the charges why would the electrician wish to share it? After all, if it’s as the OP says it totally destroys the electricians case. By the same vein why wouldn’t the OP want everyone to hear this?

The telling piece of this saga is "It turns out the debt recovery agency are debtrecovery@(name of company who did the work)" which means it hasn't been passed on at all. It's probably the same exact person who deals with the accounts.

Anyway it's always interesting to know what former Spice Girls are up to. 

melb

lol yes times are hard!  Hoping we can reform but Victoria feels her voice is no longer up to it and Geri is now royalty so think I'm on my own

Sandtree

MalMonroe said:

melb said:

sorry to resurrect my post - i am sure you have all moved on to better things!  We have received an email from the 'debt recovery department' in which they confirm they have listened to the telephone recording.  After doing some research online I am surprised that you say there is no problem in them doing this as I thought permission had to be sought beforehand.  Also my understanding that a business can only record telephone conversations with an individual under certain circumstances, none of which are the case here.

They have further threatened to come and remove the part they have fitted and say they will be within their rights to do this 'as the part is fitted in a charger which is outside the house so they would be able to do this without disturbance to you'.  They say they retain the right to do this as set out in their terms and conditions.  We have never seen these as they are not on the invoice, nor are they on their website.

They will be trespassing will they not if they access our drive without permission?

They also refer to the fact that the fitted part remains their property until it is paid for - surely £144 would cover the cost of a £7 part?  Also having looked online it is my understanding that once fitted, parts automatically become the property of the client irrespective of whether they have been paid for.

Would it be classed as a danger to life should an electrician remove a part which is meant to offer protection from electrocution?

Would the police be interested in a threat to remove property?

Calls can be recorded without anyone's permission but as others have said, recordings obtained in that way cannot be passed to a third party without the permission of the person who has been recorded. So permission DOES have to be obtained at some point, depending on how the recording was made.

Are you meaning explicit consent or implicit? ie if their Privacy Notice included that they will share customer data with third parties such as debt collection agencies... obviously doubt this company has gone as far as having a published privacy notice but to consider in the wider context as have known multinationals share recorded calls without explicit consent to regulators, courts etc with no one batting an eyelid. 

Manxman_in_exile

Gavin83 said:

robatwork said:

melb said:

thanks yes I have requested a copy of the recording 

This recording exists as much as a deity in the sky.

I doubt it exists either.

However there’s a lot I don’t really understand about this scenario. If the recording does exist and the OP didn’t agree to the charges why would the electrician wish to share it? After all, if it’s as the OP says it totally destroys the electricians case. By the same vein why wouldn’t the OP want everyone to hear this?

I doubt it exists also.  I think the electrician has raised it as a bluff.  I wonder whether the OP is concerned that the recording (if it exists at all) may support the electrician's argument which might be why they are clutching at what might be a straw that any recording (if it exists) is unlawful in some way...