NCPS parking refuse to accept calls when notified of recording

Piliger · 22-07-2014 1:17pm #1

I wonder what legal or other issues apply here.

I record all of my calls where the business I am calling states they are recording the call.

In the last couple of weeks I have had cause to call NCPS, the clamping company, a couple of times and have told them I was recording.

They immediately refused to continue the call unless the recording was stopped. Both times I told them I was stopping - but naturally I didn't.

Are they entitled to refuse calls when they themselves are recording the calls ? I find this a most astonishingly arrogant behaviour. I am considering complaining to the people that license them. Is that the Dublin City Council ?

Paulw · 22-07-2014 1:38pm

Good question.

Another question would be - since they are already aware that the call is being recorded (by their own company), do you need to notify them that you too are recording the call?

Piliger · 22-07-2014 2:01pm

It's the unbridled arrogance that gets me. I asked before when I called an insurance company if they could stop recording and they said there was nothing they could do to do so. It seems these businesses are taking this liberty and then telling us that won't do business with us unless we allow them to record the calls - and then when we say we will record them .... it fcuk off.

Marcusm · 22-07-2014 2:23pm

Are you under any obligation to let them know you are recording it? I understood that there was no offence when at least one of the parties was aware of the recording. Businesses who are subject to Data Protection regulation have additional safeguards placed on them hence the warning.

Piliger · 22-07-2014 2:25pm

Marcusm wrote: »

Are you under any obligation to let them know you are recording it? I understood that there was no offence when at least one of the parties was aware of the recording. Businesses who are subject to Data Protection regulation have additional safeguards placed on them hence the warning.

I agree. I was under no obligation. There is no obligation placed on companies that requires them to record incoming calls.

conorh91 · 22-07-2014 2:51pm

It probably depends on the circumstances of the case, i.e. the reason you need to contact NCPS. It's possible to speculate that there is an obligation to engage regardless of a recording, it's possible to speculate that there is not.

Paulw wrote: »

Another question would be - since they are already aware that the call is being recorded (by their own company), do you need to notify them that you too are recording the call?

There is no obligation to warn a person that they are being recorded on the telephone per se.

Without a warning, the recording may be of no value since it may be inadmissable in any subsequent action.

Piliger · 22-07-2014 2:56pm

conorh91 wrote: »

Without a warning, the recording may be of no value since it may be inadmissable in any subsequent action.

Well that's not the only value of a recording, even in a legal action.

Anyone know who licenses private clampers like this ?

Dangel4x4 · 22-07-2014 3:01pm

Any time I hear a statement that says "Calls may be recorded for training or quality assurance" I take that "may be recorded" bit to suggest that I have permission from the other party to record the conversation.

Of course the other party would say "Calls might be recorded" if they were trying to tell you that they sometimes record calls.

BTW, insurance companies are within their rights to record calls relating to policies or proposals, as people might "forget" to inform the insurance company of some relevant fact. If you don't like having such conversations recorded I suppose you can visit your local broker in person to buy insurance...

conorh91 · 22-07-2014 3:06pm

Piliger wrote: »

Well that's not the only value of a recording, even in a legal action.

I know. It has a value, but only a personal-use value. You can put it on a CD and listen to it on the journey to court and then go in and tell the Court what you heard. The Court will weigh up the evidence and may or may not believe you.

Bepolite · 22-07-2014 3:10pm

Recordings taken without the other party's consent are not, automatically, inadmissible.

People also forget there are many quasi-judicial processes that are not courts.

Bepolite · 22-07-2014 3:11pm

Dangel4x4 wrote: »

Any time I hear a statement that says "Calls may be recorded for training or quality assurance" I take that "may be recorded" bit to suggest that I have permission from the other party to record the conversation.

Of course the other party would say "Calls might be recorded" if they were trying to tell you that they sometimes record calls.

BTW, insurance companies are within their rights to record calls relating to policies or proposals, as people might "forget" to inform the insurance company of some relevant fact. If you don't like having such conversations recorded I suppose you can visit your local broker in person to buy insurance...

Our inhouse team has certainly been wise to this for sometime. You should have seen the poor dolts treking backwards and forwards to endless meetings to change the wording...

Five Lamps · 23-07-2014 12:08am

Piliger wrote: »

I wonder what legal or other issues apply here.

I record all of my calls where the business I am calling states they are recording the call.

In the last couple of weeks I have had cause to call NCPS, the clamping company, a couple of times and have told them I was recording.

They immediately refused to continue the call unless the recording was stopped. Both times I told them I was stopping - but naturally I didn't.

Are they entitled to refuse calls when they themselves are recording the calls ? I find this a most astonishingly arrogant behaviour. I am considering complaining to the people that license them. Is that the Dublin City Council ?

Do they have an announcement that calls are being recorded? If so, then both parties are aware that the call is being recorded so does it make any difference by whom? If they say they're recording then I don't see an issue with firing up your recorder.

Piliger · 23-07-2014 1:56am

Five Lamps wrote: »

Do they have an announcement that calls are being recorded? If so, then both parties are aware that the call is being recorded so does it make any difference by whom? If they say they're recording then I don't see an issue with firing up your recorder.

I agree. Which makes their refusal to take a call similarly described by me quite bizarre don't you think ?

pablo128 · 23-07-2014 2:02am

Solution - make the call, and when the conversation has finished, reply, 'that's grand, thanks very much for your time. Oh by the way, I'm just letting you know that I have recorded this call.'

Then hang up before they get a chance to say anything.

Piliger · 23-07-2014 2:03am

pablo128 wrote: »

Solution - make the call, and when the conversation has finished, reply, 'that's grand, thanks very much for your time. Oh by the way, I'm just letting you know that I have recorded this call.'

Then hang up before they get a chance to say anything.

Indeed.

hullaballoo · 23-07-2014 2:07am

Why are you bothering to tell them you're recording it if you know they're going to hang up. Just record it if you want to. It doesn't look to me like its admissibility in procedural terms is likely to arise here.

The reason for the warning given by businesses is down to their obligations under the DPAs but has nothing to do with privacy.

To answer your other question from the OP, they are unlicensed and unregulated. There is a serious question around the legality of what they are doing. However, the government in their infinite wisdom seem to be trying to bring in legislation to regulate them, which will legitimise clampers. The only clampers that are operating within the law are those contracted by the State, I think just Dublin and Cork city councils. I also think Cork have gotten rid of their clampers.

Pro Hoc Vice · 23-07-2014 2:12am

conorh91 wrote: »

It probably depends on the circumstances of the case, i.e. the reason you need to contact NCPS. It's possible to speculate that there is an obligation to engage regardless of a recording, it's possible to speculate that there is not.

There is no obligation to warn a person that they are being recorded on the telephone per se.

Without a warning, the recording may be of no value since it may be inadmissable in any subsequent action.

The admissibility of any evidence is up to a judge and such a recording would if it has evidential value and can be verified would in many cases be admitted.

Arthur Beesley · 23-07-2014 8:47am

Piliger wrote: »

I wonder what legal or other issues apply here.

I record all of my calls where the business I am calling states they are recording the call.

In the last couple of weeks I have had cause to call NCPS, the clamping company, a couple of times and have told them I was recording.

They immediately refused to continue the call unless the recording was stopped. Both times I told them I was stopping - but naturally I didn't.

Are they entitled to refuse calls when they themselves are recording the calls ? I find this a most astonishingly arrogant behaviour. I am considering complaining to the people that license them. Is that the Dublin City Council ?

So you are lying about your recording the calls?

Piliger · 23-07-2014 2:47pm

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

So you are lying about your recording the calls?

Yes in that case. Totally.

23-07-2014 3:22pm

Dangel4x4 wrote: »

BTW, insurance companies are within their rights to record calls relating to policies or proposals, as people might "forget" to inform the insurance company of some relevant fact. If you don't like having such conversations recorded I suppose you can visit your local broker in person to buy insurance...

Actually, soon financial institutions and insurance companies will be obliged to record all calls in client-facing interactions and retain the recordings for a certain period of time.

Dangel4x4 · 23-07-2014 3:44pm

234 wrote: »

Actually, soon financial institutions and insurance companies will be obliged to record all calls in client-facing interactions and retain the recordings for a certain period of time.

Proper order. I've no problem with that:)

Piliger · 23-07-2014 4:26pm

Dangel4x4 wrote: »

Proper order. I've no problem with that:)

Will they refuse to deal with customers who record their calls I wonder ?

Dangel4x4 · 23-07-2014 5:13pm

Yeah, probably.

Do you see a problem arising from that?

Like I said previously, you can go to your local bank/insurance broker in person if you don't like the idea of having a conversation recorded for future reference.

Piliger · 23-07-2014 5:29pm

Dangel4x4 wrote: »

Yeah, probably.

Do you see a problem arising from that?

Like I said previously, you can go to your local bank/insurance broker in person if you don't like the idea of having a conversation recorded for future reference.

You miss the issue. The issue is why and on what basis can be used to refuse to deal with people who are only doing what they themselves are doing ...

Dangel4x4 · 23-07-2014 6:56pm

You miss the issue.

Banks and insurance companies record calls because people lie when applying for loans or looking for insurance cover.

They have to be able to cover their ass if a statement they took at face value turns out to be a lie.

How many times do you need the same thing repeated to you? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

IF YOU OBJECT TO CALLS BEING RECORDED, DO YOUR BUSINESS FACE TO FACE OR IN WRITING.

frag420 · 23-07-2014 6:58pm

Dangel4x4 wrote: »

You miss the issue.

Banks and insurance companies record calls because people lie when applying for loans or looking for insurance cover.

They have to be able to cover their ass if a statement they took at face value turns out to be a lie.

How many times do you need the same thing repeated to you? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

IF YOU OBJECT TO CALLS BEING RECORDED, DO YOUR BUSINESS FACE TO FACE OR IN WRITING.

Banks never lie, great bunch of lads!!

Piliger · 23-07-2014 7:05pm

Dangel4x4 wrote: »

You miss the issue.

Banks and insurance companies record calls because people lie when applying for loans or looking for insurance cover.

And what about when they lie ?

They have to be able to cover their ass if a statement they took at face value turns out to be a lie.

And what about when they lie ?

How many times do you need the same thing repeated to you? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

What's your problem ?

IF YOU OBJECT TO CALLS BEING RECORDED, DO YOUR BUSINESS FACE TO FACE OR IN WRITING.[/QUOTE]

So their hypocrisy is fine with you ? And what's with the shouting ? do you think we're all deaf ?

conorh91 · 23-07-2014 7:22pm

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

The admissibility of any evidence is up to a judge and such a recording would if it has evidential value and can be verified would in many cases be admitted.

Eh, right. That's why I said "may". Twice.

Dangel4x4 · 23-07-2014 7:56pm

frag420 wrote: »

Banks never lie, great bunch of lads!!

Piliger wrote: »

And what about when they lie ?

And what about when they lie ?

What's your problem ?

Why don't you have some respect for yourself and hold yourself to a higher standard? If you're honest in your dealings what do you care?

Piliger wrote: »

So their hypocrisy is fine with you ? And what's with the shouting ? do you think we're all deaf ?

Well yeah you do seem to have difficulty understanding what I wrote the first two times... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

pablo128 · 23-07-2014 8:03pm

Dangel4x4 wrote: »

Why don't you have some respect for yourself and hold yourself to a higher standard? If you're honest in your dealings what do you care?

Well yeah you do seem to have difficulty understanding what I wrote the first two times... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Let's simplify this a little.
Company A inform you when you call them that the call is being recorded. Fine. You inform company A when you call them, after they inform you that they are recording the call, that you are also recording the call. Company A refuses to continue the call because you are recording them, and hang up.

Can you not see the hypocrisy?

Dangel4x4 · 23-07-2014 8:18pm

pablo128 wrote: »

Can you not see the hypocrisy?

Record the call then, and don't tell them. Jesus. :rolleyes:

Why is it so important to have a recording of a call anyway? Want to show them you mean business? :eek: Do you want to play it to your friends in the pub or put it on youtube? Planning fallout of a legal nature?

Ever hear of the phrase "tilting at windmills"?

pablo128 · 23-07-2014 8:24pm

Dangel4x4 wrote: »

Record the call then, and don't tell them. Jesus. :rolleyes:

Why is it so important to have a recording of a call anyway? Want to show them you mean business? :eek: Do you want to play it to your friends in the pub or put it on youtube? Planning fallout of a legal nature?

Ever hear of the phrase "tilting at windmills"?

It is as important for the OP to record the call as the company he is dealing with to record the call. Or do you disagree?

In the OP's case, he is dealing with a clamping company, who as I'm sure you know have been acused of shady behaviour in the past.

frag420 · 23-07-2014 8:52pm

Dangel4x4 wrote: »

Ever hear of the phrase "tilting at windmills"?

Nope, do tell....

Dangel4x4 · 23-07-2014 9:24pm

frag420 wrote: »

Nope, do tell....

[url]Http://lmgtfy.com/?q=tilting+at+windmills+idiom[/url]

Anything else you want me to google for you?

Dangel4x4 · 23-07-2014 9:26pm

pablo128 wrote: »

It is as important for the OP to record the call as the company he is dealing with to record the call. Or do you disagree?

In the OP's case, he is dealing with a clamping company, who as I'm sure you know have been acused of shady behaviour in the past.

So he has to pay a clamping fine and this is his passive-aggressive way of dealing with the situation?

pablo128 · 23-07-2014 9:37pm

Dangel4x4 wrote: »

So he has to pay a clamping fine and this is his passive-aggressive way of dealing with the situation?

I asked you a question, and you answer it with another question. Very good.

Dangel4x4 · 23-07-2014 9:44pm

Here's another question: are you representing the OP now or just maintaining the air of righteous indignation while he's not around?

pablo128 · 23-07-2014 9:59pm

Dangel4x4 wrote: »

Here's another question: are you representing the OP now or just maintaining the air of righteous indignation while he's not around?

Go back and read his original post instead of twisting things around. You were trying to make out he had a big problem with a company recording him. His original post was about why they wouldn't allow him to record them.
And feel free to answer my question instead of dodging it.

Dangel4x4 · 23-07-2014 10:14pm

pablo128 wrote: »

Go back and read his original post instead of twisting things around. You were trying to make out he had a big problem with a company recording him. His original post was about why they wouldn't allow him to record them.
And feel free to answer my question instead of dodging it.

And if you go back and read my posts, I was discussing banks and insurance companies before you and your pal frag420 decided to wade in with your tuppence worth.

Anything else?

Piliger · 23-07-2014 10:51pm

Dangel4x4 wrote: »

Here's another question: are you representing the OP now or just maintaining the air of righteous indignation while he's not around?

Why don't you spend as much time actually reading comments as you do trying and failing to appear intelligent.

if you read my OP then you would see that you are addressing issues in your head and not in my post. And I wasn't calling them about any clamping to do with me. Is that simple enough for you ?

...__... · 23-07-2014 11:44pm

The hypocrisy lies therein that the company does not have control over the recording.
That way say for example Eircom mis sells a product and when you complain and ask for the recording it suddenly vanishes into thin air. but if you also had a recording then the game is up and the position changes.

Dangel4x4 · 24-07-2014 12:07am

Piliger wrote: »

Why don't you spend as much time actually reading comments as you do trying and failing to appear intelligent.

if you read my OP then you would see that you are addressing issues in your head and not in my post.

I can see why NCPS don't want to talk to you. If I was having a phone conversation with you right now, I'd probably hang up too. :rolleyes:

frag420 · 24-07-2014 12:14am

Dangel4x4 wrote: »

[url]Http://lmgtfy.com/?q=tilting+at+windmills+idiom[/url]

Anything else you want me to google for you?

No, as you were.

Piliger · 24-07-2014 12:17am

Dangel4x4 wrote: »

I can see why NCPS don't want to talk to you. If I was having a phone conversation with you right now, I'd probably hang up too. :rolleyes:

If only.

Piliger · 24-07-2014 12:20am

...__... wrote: »

The hypocrisy lies therein that the company does not have control over the recording.
That way say for example Eircom mis sells a product and when you complain and ask for the recording it suddenly vanishes into thin air. but if you also had a recording then the game is up and the position changes.

This would seem to lie at the heart of the matter. If we entered a dispute with them, then no doubt they would claim that that just happened to be one of the calls that they did NOT record .... :rolleyes: and this is how they can bully people into submission.

I think I'll write a few letters and in the meantime go back to recording all of them without any prior notice.

hullaballoo · 24-07-2014 12:42am

Dangel4x4 wrote: »

And if you go back and read my posts, I was discussing banks and insurance companies before you and your pal frag420 decided to wade in with your tuppence worth.

Anything else?

Moderator: do not post in this thread again. Please also review the forum charter so that you are aware in future what is appropriate to the forum standards.

evolving_doors · 24-07-2014 1:08am

Getting back to the OP. When you ring them up you state ..

"This call is being recorded yes?" To which they should reply yes if they are indeed recording it. You are simultaneously confirming from your position that you are recording the call too.

The fact that you recorded it, but they might have misconstrued your first admission and their subsequent consent by saying yes, is moot, as they have recorded the same conversation which they were in agreement with regardless.

i.e. if they are ok to record your conversation from their end then it would be illogical to suggest that they wouldn't be OK and consenting with recording the exact same conversation from your end.

So if they conveniently 'loose' the copy at their end then you still have proof that there is a recording from your end to which they consented.

Piliger · 24-07-2014 2:09am

# Armelodie: Excellent points. Thanks.

evolving_doors · 24-07-2014 9:13am

Maybe you could be cheeky and still put an FOI request for their recording and even if they claim later they never sent one, you could say "yes you did I have the recording here"?

Edit: you would probably have to have it on the exact same type of cd with similar quality recording or bleeps on it...maybe try and get another recording from a different conversation and have a look.

Sounds a bit underhand,but hey, if they are recording and not giving you a copy then fair is fair. Only catch is if they claim it has been edited in some way as maybe they might use a hidden audio stamp (but doubt it).

Little CuChulainn · 24-07-2014 10:04am

So to answer the ops original question, yes they can refuse to deal with you if you are recording them. Nobody licenses them. They operate under a grey area of the law.

Piliger · 24-07-2014 3:13pm

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

So to answer the ops original question, yes they can refuse to deal with you if you are recording them. Nobody licenses them. They operate under a grey area of the law.

Tks. I think I'm going to test out a few other companies, such as Insurance and Electricity. See how they react.

NCPS parking refuse to accept calls when notified of recording

Comments