tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post797758885240590337..comments2024-03-28T09:19:27.451+00:00Comments on RevK<sup>®</sup>'s ramblings: RecordingRevKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12369263214193333422noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-36740304664697489752017-11-19T10:46:15.203+00:002017-11-19T10:46:15.203+00:00PIP assessments, rather ambiguous wording from DWP...PIP assessments, rather ambiguous wording from DWP. See page 31 sedction 1.6.55 onwards: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/655611/pip-assessment-guide-part-1-assessment-process.pdf Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11037976339554199244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-42708721812613509412017-10-18T13:45:28.698+01:002017-10-18T13:45:28.698+01:00I was being generic about my comment on what compa...I was being generic about my comment on what companies said - apologies if that wasn't clear :)Chrisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-33643303753159952222017-10-18T10:59:56.020+01:002017-10-18T10:59:56.020+01:00Interesting you bring up trespass, iirc in the UK ...Interesting you bring up trespass, iirc in the UK it only becomes trespass for commercial premises once they ask you to leave and you choose to stay. By them letting you into the building (even if you know they shouldn't be there, a lawyer in this case) they have given consent for you to be there so wouldn't be trespass. They would have to specifically ask you to leave. At that point you are correct that depending on the public body/premises then it changes how the rest progresses.Geekypenguinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04249663681946505777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-41746308357619415912017-10-17T22:00:45.565+01:002017-10-17T22:00:45.565+01:00Usually the places I call don't say "we m...Usually the places I call don't say "we may record this call"; they say "this call may be recorded". Which is clearly consent for me to do so.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-1164051833984250442017-10-17T17:58:33.189+01:002017-10-17T17:58:33.189+01:00As others have said, any company I call that annou...As others have said, any company I call that announces that "they may record this call" I also try to tell them that I am recording.<br /><br />Sometimes I forget and during the call I'll say that as they are recording it so am I - that usually makes them more receptive.Chrisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-54196170230920168422017-10-17T15:18:11.431+01:002017-10-17T15:18:11.431+01:00Having worked in call centres, I can tell you that...Having worked in call centres, I can tell you that many are still very antiquated. Full electronic call recording isn't everywhere, and in the last call centre I worked in, each agent might have 1-2 calls a week recorded. Customers would often refuse to believe us that we didn't have a call recording of every call....rtho782https://www.blogger.com/profile/02052870855136709228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-10891273688154981292017-10-17T14:53:13.603+01:002017-10-17T14:53:13.603+01:00as well as recording this information, state the d...as well as recording this information, state the date/time (to the second) of the start and end in the meeting. Again this would show up any edits Chrisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-24029850406320622172017-10-17T13:39:20.674+01:002017-10-17T13:39:20.674+01:00One third possible reason is: the recording may be...One third possible reason is: the recording may be reviewed before they send you a copy, and they may refuse to send it (or mysteriously lose the recording) if they feel anything they said was incorrect or liable to make trouble for them further down the road.Joseph Heenanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09814744420039144545noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-941655179008584322017-10-17T12:24:22.549+01:002017-10-17T12:24:22.549+01:00In my common sense view the "no solicitors&qu...In my common sense view the "no solicitors" rule is patently absurd, for the simple reason that you yourself could be a practising lawyer and they could hardly exclude you from your own meeting. You might even be able to get yourself a suitable degree from a non-accredited online institution for this exact purpose :-)<br /><br />If you feel that having a legally qualified person in the room would be useful then take one along, and introduce them (hopefully truthfully) as your friend (or what the hell, say they're your lover, valet, chauffeur, dominatrix, parole officer, whatever).<br /><br />And if you want to ask your friend their personal opinion on how the meeting is going, as proceedings progress, you should do so.mgboyeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11087136219633309258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-2271825789169713562017-10-17T10:12:24.904+01:002017-10-17T10:12:24.904+01:00It should be possible to make a call to someone wh...It should be possible to make a call to someone who then records the call, then leave the call connected for the duration of the meeting. You're not recording the meeting and the other person isn't party to the restriction.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-26106732295427054742017-10-17T09:53:07.897+01:002017-10-17T09:53:07.897+01:00Suggestion: record the exact start and finish time...Suggestion: record the exact start and finish time of the meeting. If their recording is tampered with in any way it will be to edit out certain parts which would make the duration of the recording not match the duration of the meeting. jelvhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06330649794336059930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-49481021789113423592017-10-17T09:51:25.671+01:002017-10-17T09:51:25.671+01:00"In my view, in a meeting which is already be..."In my view, in a meeting which is already being recorded by one party, this is similar to a phone call to a company call-centre that's also being recorded - there's no reasonable expectation of privacy."<br />On conversations with call centres I always advise the voice who tells me that calls may be recorded that I shall also record the call. She may be a recorded message but he/she doesn't identify themselves as such. I've used this against one very odious company before and to paraphrase Private Jones, they don't like it up 'em. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-87546831142154997762017-10-17T09:30:52.377+01:002017-10-17T09:30:52.377+01:00Companies say "We may record your calls...&qu...Companies say "We may record your calls..." rather than "We will" or "We do" so that when they listen to the recording and find it incriminates them and supports the customer they can deny that the recording exists. After all we may record the call. But we might not. And in the case of the call recording that we would prefer did not exist "We didn't happen to record that one".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-71298719101895085892017-10-17T08:40:29.221+01:002017-10-17T08:40:29.221+01:00> The Data Protection Act only applies to situa...> The Data Protection Act only applies to situations where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy<br /><br />I would be cautious applying this approach: the Act applies where there is the processing of personal data, even if the data were made public by the data subject.<br /><br />You might be able to find an exemption — e.g. s36, domestic purposes — or else find that you are compliant (as long as you are registered with the ICO :)), but I can't see a situation where the Act would simply not apply.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18427000118752159232noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-58849262898063456852017-10-17T08:36:32.240+01:002017-10-17T08:36:32.240+01:00Some thoughts:
As we are talking about recording ...Some thoughts:<br /><br />As we are talking about recording a meeting and not an interference with an electronic communication, the issues of interception, and the ePrivacy framework, fall away.<br /><br />There is no specific law prohibiting the recording of meetings by an individual who is party to a meeting. (So we leave aside covert recordings, or recordings by public authorities.)<br /><br />The recording will amount to the processing of personal data, so the data protection framework kicks in. However, in the context here, the person doing the recording is to ensure that they have an accurate record of the meeting, for their own, solely domestic, purposes. IMHO, this case falls squarely within the "domestic purposes" exemption, so there is no requirement to notify or to have a lawful basis, and so on.<br /><br />It is not clear from the facts, but it seems that the other party might be hosting the meeting. If this is the case, there's potentially an arguable that they can choose who they admit onto their premises, and under what conditions. Someone who entered in breach of those conditions could well be a trespasser. Generally, trespass is a civil law matter, but there are some interesting specific powers. For example, there is an offence of "causing nuisance or disturbance on NHS premises", which can criminalise otherwise-tortious conduct.<br /><br />Noting that the other party is a "public body", it might be interesting to explore whether the body's action in refusing a recording was lawful. I wonder if an argument might be made, for example, that, by prohibiting an attendee from recording, the public body was an unjustified interference with fundamental rights. For example, might the prohibition interfere with the right to respect for private and family life? Alternatively, if they knew it was being recorded and refused to proceed, would the refusal to proceed be lawful?<br /><br />If the result of the meeting was such that legal action was contemplated, I do not know how a court would treat the issue of a covert recording. Is it admissible as evidence? Does it show bad faith? Or would, in the case of an individual versus a public body, a court recognise the imbalance in the relationship? (I'm not a litigator; I have no idea.)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18427000118752159232noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-76899479645687382882017-10-17T08:31:36.521+01:002017-10-17T08:31:36.521+01:00Personally I would record it anyway if you were ev...Personally I would record it anyway if you were even the slightest bit worried. Presumably the contents of the recording only become important if some legal proceedings were to follow and I can imagine the judge would be more concerned that the public body has altered or modified a recording to possibly alter the truth or the tone of a conversation, than with you making a recording against policyGeekypenguinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04249663681946505777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-35357594879164490812017-10-17T08:25:58.644+01:002017-10-17T08:25:58.644+01:00Oo hadn't looked at it that way beforeOo hadn't looked at it that way before Geekypenguinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04249663681946505777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-63072371418847196812017-10-17T08:25:48.959+01:002017-10-17T08:25:48.959+01:00A good word for it. It is a very stressful matter ...A good word for it. It is a very stressful matter and this just adds to the stress. Thanks all for the comments.RevKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369263214193333422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-73332612288665233762017-10-17T08:21:49.653+01:002017-10-17T08:21:49.653+01:00LOL, No, this is entirely a personal matter.LOL, No, this is entirely a personal matter.RevKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369263214193333422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-41818532784749817842017-10-17T08:20:43.339+01:002017-10-17T08:20:43.339+01:00Interesting. I can't yet go in to details, but...Interesting. I can't yet go in to details, but thanks.RevKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369263214193333422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-76171630235821892772017-10-17T08:17:56.583+01:002017-10-17T08:17:56.583+01:00I also like "calls may be recorded" as t...I also like "calls may be recorded" as that clearly can be "read" as saying that you can record the call :-)RevKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369263214193333422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-3392021312300565712017-10-17T08:10:22.496+01:002017-10-17T08:10:22.496+01:00Well quite. As for a judge, you can use the record...Well quite. As for a judge, you can use the recording to make a transcript, and say that you used a recording so as to give the transcript more credibility than simply from memory, as far as I know. It is perhaps something we should look in to when we do the blog.<br /><br />I also found saying that the call is recorded, or on a later call "I'll check the call recording" does rather make people jump, and you can say that even when it is not recorded :-)RevKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369263214193333422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-11900791977688602482017-10-17T08:03:07.026+01:002017-10-17T08:03:07.026+01:00To be honest, taking the two restrictions together...To be honest, taking the two restrictions together makes it sound like they don't want any legal scrutiny, by preventing you from having either a solicitor, or a recording to give to one later on. That's just... unsettling.Pete Favellehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06118087223604691014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-39923535765360434372017-10-17T07:48:03.069+01:002017-10-17T07:48:03.069+01:00I'm not a solicitor nor am I otherwise legally...I'm not a solicitor nor am I otherwise legally "qualified". That said, I like legal things and data protection things.<br /><br />The only major statute law I can think of that would apply in this case, is the Data Protection Act 1998. As you presumably wouldn't be recording for personal purposes but rather for business purposes, you wouldn't qualify for the general exemption that grants.<br /><br />However, all is not lost. You're only obliged to abide by the Data Protection Act where personal data is at stake. Personal data refers to data that could uniquely identify an individual given the other information you hold or can access. So, presumably you could identify the person you're speaking to in a meeting, as you'd have that in your calendar somewhere.<br /><br />That therefore still fails, but there is yet hope. The Data Protection Act only applies to situations where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy (eg you have a reasonable expectation of privacy such that only authorised people can view your criminal record or credit history). In my view, in a meeting which is already being recorded by one party, this is similar to a phone call to a company call-centre that's also being recorded - there's no reasonable expectation of privacy.<br /><br />I would therefore say that on that basis, as the person with whom you're holding the meeting can't expect privacy because everything is already being recorded and that recording is to be shared with you, it wouldn't be an issue to record the meeting. That said, I do remember reading some case law recently that suggested that, in the case of for example financial regulators, they were exempt from certain disclosures and requirements because an individual member of staff could be identified.<br /><br />I would always still think it a good idea to notify the other side that you are recording, even were there are. However, if the worst comes to the worst then you could simply say that you have a transcript of the meeting and, perhaps, this may conflict with their transcript. You can prove that your transcript is correct using a recording, or at the very least you can shed doubt on their recording/transcript if it differs from yours.<br /><br />In any case, I wouldn't be willing to go to a meeting where solicitors and recording aren't allowed, nor would I let anyone do so on my behalf. If it's so terribly important, they can conduct a meeting under reasonable conditions. After all, this isn't a meeting between two private companies where it might be reasonable to impose such conditions with mutual consent, this is a meeting with a public authority. They can't get away with silliness like this.<br /><br />Anyway, just some views.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-62562139979848712472017-10-16T23:29:28.557+01:002017-10-16T23:29:28.557+01:00does A&A have any blackboxes or are you being ...does A&A have any blackboxes or are you being consulted about them?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com