Audio Recording of Financial Appointments in a High Street Bank

xylophone

Why would you not regard a recording as protecting your position as well as that of the bank?

BooJewels

After a number of incidents involving inept staff in financial institutions and elsewhere, I would insist that meetings/conversations are recorded as long as they don't mind me doing the same for myself.  I always take a digital recorder to meetings with me, plus I have my phone too.

I have won two quite significant battles with a high street bank where details of a conversation were disputed and I insisted that they review their recording to ascertain exactly what was said - as I was confident as to what it was.  Both were worth 4 figure sums to me when resolved.   I always make a note of the date and time of calls and the name of who I speak to for exactly this purpose.  Although with current technology, I think the recordings are readily accessible from your account anyway.

IanManc

MickyPalTaog said:

I do believe HBOS are legally allowed to record financial appointments. I also believe customers have the right to decline recording and that this does not preclude access to HBOS Services.

What do the forum feel about this ? 

It is lawful for them to record appointments.

Customers have a right to refuse.

You do not have a right to receive services from the banking group. If they choose not to do business with people who choose not to have meetings recorded then that is a decision they are free to make.

jaypers

If you had phone any Bank, it is recorded and you don’t really have a choice. Don’t really see any reason why a customer would justifiably refuse. 

eskbanker

DullGreyGuy said:

Certainly in London however it seems to be common for doctors to dictate letters and so whilst no a recording of me discussing itchy balls doesn't exist they do then record themselves talking about my nob rot.

I wonder if building societies record their conversations involving their members....?

surreysaver

Its not consent if they refuse to provide a product if you don't consent. This is why why NHS doesn't use consent for the basis of sharing patient data

eskbanker

surreysaver said:

Its not consent if they refuse to provide a product if you don't consent. This is why why NHS doesn't use consent for the basis of sharing patient data

Not sure I'm following the point you're making but they're not refusing to provide a product as such, they're effectively saying that they offer three methods of accessing it:

1. In branch (recorded)
2. By phone (recorded)
3. Online (involving tick boxes to confirm you accept terms, warnings, etc)

Brie

dunstonh said:

Would this not be 'for as long is relevant whereby a relationship exists between customer and bank and for up to 7 years post account closure'. I do believe that recordings are held for different time periods (shorter) than electronic mail and physical paper documents but I could be wrong.

No.   Data protection allows data in respect of liability to be retained as long as the liability exists.   As there is no long stop with financial services, that means financial firms can hold onto the data indefinitely.

Some bits of data may have time periods (e.g. emails or call logs) but anything used for liability would not be included in that.

If the person is no longer a customer, then it can still be retained.

Yes but no but....

Currently most banks (I'd like to say all companies) will have data retention policies in place and require various teams attest to the fact they are not retaining any records more than 6 or 7 years - whatever the standard is.  The same would apply to recordings particularly where there is no longer a relationship with the customer.  In reality being human means there's lots of screw ups (actions being screwed up, not people obviously  ) which means files are not deleted in a timely fashion and others are deleted much too early.  As IT progresses some of this record handling will become more automated but also more data will be compressed and so easier to retain (as it's not like having a warehouse full of files or computer discs).  

Quite agree that it may be disconcerting but given the number of banking scandals completely required.  Perhaps one could ask for the record to be deleted after the "training and monitoring" has been completed?

retiredbanker1

I know that Lloyds were doing this for mortgage appointments years ago - it was used 100% to make sure the advisers were following the script - and cross sales!!
If they did not produce enough sales - then disciplinary action would follow and a few I know left the business before they were pushed as they knew there is always a demand for qualified mortgage advisors.

surreysaver

eskbanker said:

surreysaver said:

Its not consent if they refuse to provide a product if you don't consent. This is why why NHS doesn't use consent for the basis of sharing patient data

Not sure I'm following the point you're making but they're not refusing to provide a product as such, they're effectively saying that they offer three methods of accessing it:

1. In branch (recorded)
2. By phone (recorded)
3. Online (involving tick boxes to confirm you accept terms, warnings, etc)

The point is, they shouldn't be asking for consent, if the provision of providing the product is dependent upon the customer providing consent. Under GDPR, consent must be entirely voluntary, and can be revoked at any time afterwards. Its not consent if there are strings attached.
I also suspect the reason for the recording is to provide evidence in the case of any complaints afterwards, rather than the reasons given, so is also against GDPR