Recording a call

vectorvictor wrote: »

I am aware of the charter on legal advice moreso seeking direction or opinions

I reported an event to a company in early January by phone

They state their calls are recorded when you call them

A GDPR request resulted in them saying they only record some calls and mine wasn't one of them

They are denying I reported the event

I have my own copy of the call through Android ACR

I haven't told them this

Am I allowed to have recorded this call and if I disclose it to them as proof will I get in trouble ? Is there implied consent considering they stated they were recording the call (which is captured on my recording) ?

My capacity is consumer there's is as a company

Whic app exactly are you using? I looked up android acr expecting a specific app to display? but actually got acrobat reader, and then checked for call recording apps, I used to have an app that diverted messages to a gmail account, but I just stopped using it when the app became unreliable and didnt start again, sick of, especially dealing with companies as a consumer and even in private calls of people saying they did such and such or denying they said so and so, when I know exactly what has transpired (I dont know why but I noticed it seems to happen a lot with people and organisations copping out and making excuses).
Im planning to just start recording calls for confirmation, is the app you use good and can you point me in its direction specifically.

Captain_Crash wrote: »

I work in this exact area and this is a common question. With regards to the provision of calls to customers, there is no requirement to provide any, nor is there a requirement to confirm if a call has been recorded. Much like you said, our customer service team just say calls “may” be recorded.

With regards to recording it without permission, this isn’t an issue with regards to legality. However, if let’s say it went to court, then it will be difficult to include it as evidence as you didn’t get consent from the other party. When a company says “calls may be recorded etc” that’s them getting consent from you for them to record the call but is not inferred as permission to record it yourself.

I have seen cases where a claimant has withdrawn a claim as it was based on a call they had recorded without notifying us. Equally, I’ve heard customer recorded calls where we did mess up and we’d look to resolve the matter if that’s the case.

So to summerise, if they made an error then the call will be handy to have to try and get them to fix it.... however if they get stubborn and let it go to court, then the call is likely of no use to you

Edit: Aaaaaaand I’ve just noticed this is a year old thread haha

I had assumed One Person or Single Party consent was legal in Ireland

https://www.mhc.ie/latest/insights/big-brother-is-watching-but-is-he-listening-too

Assuming that to be correct and it's legal to record it without the 3rd party consenting, why wouldn't it be admissible? Genuine question, I haven't a fig

Captain_Crash wrote: »

However, if let’s say it went to court, then it will be difficult to include it as evidence as you didn’t get consent from the other party. When a company says “calls may be recorded etc” that’s them getting consent from you for them to record the call but is not inferred as permission to record it yourself.

I don't have a legal background. But surely the common phrasing "this call may be recorded for quality and training purposes" allows us to record the call on the basis that we want to ensure the quality of service we're receiving? The wording allows it, and I believe it's a legal principle that lack of clarity in a contract is interpreted to benefit the party that *didn't* draft it.


To later say "oh, we meant that to apply to only us, not to you" hardly seems enforceable.

After the recorded introduction saying that they are recording the call what would the legal situation be if you said you were also recording it?
Could you then use it as evidence in court?

ectoraige wrote: »

Would GDPR apply to non-business customers if they are just service users? They wouldn't be regarded as collecting the data for business purposes would they?

This is a very good question, that could bring you down a rabbit hole if you really went into it. If they are collecting data, then they surely have a reason. If an individual has a reason then must they specify that reason in the same way a business would? I don't actually know. My view is probably not.

After the recorded introduction saying that they are recording the call what would the legal situation be if you said you were also recording it?

In my firm, our customer support agents just advise that they do not have permission to record the call, the caller will normally say "ok I've stopped" and the call will just continue. (99 times out of 100 the caller didnt stop recording, if they even were in the first place)

Not inferred by who? Is there any legal precedent on this?

I stated that as a matter of fact so excuse me if I caused any confusion. We would infer that when we advise a call "may be recorded" its that it might be recorded by us, but doesn't give permission to the other party. The term "may" isn't meat to read "you may record this call" its meant to read as "we might possibly record the call"

Diego Inexpensive Cord wrote: »

i cannot think of any where you can opt out. When they come on the line after the recording the don't give this option in myexperience

Well, you can opt out by hanging up when you hear the message telling you that the call will be recorded. Or you can wait until a human being comes on the line, ask if the recording can be terminated (don't wait for them to offer; raise the matter yourself) and, if the answer is "no", terminate the conversation.

Bottom line; you cannot be compelled to participate in a recorded conversation with them if you are not willing to. But, by the same token, they cannot be compelled to participate in an unrecorded conversation with you if they are not willing to.

tjhook wrote: »

But if we're talking about legal matters, then the wording is important. The term "this call may be recorded" isn't the same as "Megacorp inc. may record this call". The passive voice applies equally to the company, the customer, and even potentially a third party (e.g. an agent of the company). If the company wants to restrict this, it's up to them to word it correctly.

If they just said "calls may be recorded" you might have a point.
But I've never heard it described in such basic or loose terms. It's usually followed by "...for training and quality purposes". Which would exclude any offer of permission to the customer as they are not involved in training staff.

The company legally obliged to let you know about the recording as you have to consent to the record.

Diego Inexpensive Cord wrote: »

it's not practical to opt out if you need the service though. Years ago a friend was wrongly billed and was able to have the company confirm they told him, wrongly, they would cover it by their listening back

In that case he benefited. But there is nothing to say he couldn't have opted out and lost the benefit.

Diego Inexpensive Cord wrote: »

Really what I meant is you cannot opt out and continue with the call, yopu cannot say to the person answering i don't want to be recordedt

Diego Inexpensive Cord wrote: »

you can say it but they say all calls are recorded and we cannot change that, in my experience

That is incorrect.
Many companies give the option to not be recorded.
If some choice not to for their own protection, that's their right tbh. In which case you have the right to hang up.

Diego Inexpensive Cord wrote: »

It is not incorrect. I said in my experience.

I quoted two posts. The first is not "in your experience". It says you cannot opt out. That's a definitive statement. It is incorrect as in many case you can opt to not be recorded.

tjhook wrote: »

What if I want to record the call to ensure the quality of service I receive?

The wording allows it. If they want to disallow it, they would need to rephrase their conditions.

How does your recording the call help with training of staff?
Monitoring the the service you receive is outside the specific meaning of the phrasing imo.

There are reasons justify your call imo. But if your case hinges on the phasing used, I think it falls short.

Diego Inexpensive Cord wrote: »

i said in my experience you cannot opt out and continue the call once the call is in motion. The statement is correct



I am not responding to you again.

Many companies do allow you to opt out. You can add on the “in your experience” tag if you like. But it wasn’t in this post that I quoted. So my point remains. This post was not correct.

Diego Inexpensive Cord wrote: »

Really what I meant is you cannot opt out and continue with the call, yopu cannot say to the person answering i don't want to be recorded.In the case i know of it was a medical service which the Data Protection Comm upheld a complaint about.The call was recorded but the 'this call is being recorded' did not play..

It came in very handy as the company were able to confirm it was their error and, in fairness, were upfront about it

Its ok, I don’t need a response. It’s pretty clear cut.

tjhook wrote: »

The conditions can be parsed in at least two ways:

1. This call may be recorded for training purposes and also for quality purposes. I.e. either one.

2. This call may be recorded only if it's for both training and quality purposes.

Well no, it can't be parsed in both of those ways. In order for for 1. to apply, you had to add the word also.
Or change the "and" to an "or". Which isn't there.

Remember, you are the one relying on the exact definition of "may be" as justification. If that's the approach, you have to maintain it for the entire application. So 2 can out apply.

Now number (2) above is ridiculous. Is a company really going to replay every single call they receive every day to their employees in order to train them? If not, they'd be in breach of their own conditions.

I don't see how there is any implication that every single call all day every day will be used. Even if they only said "for training purposes only". There is no suggestion that all have to be used.

The above is not the companies conditions btw. Their intention is quite clear, they are recording the calls for their own training and quality.

It is you that is trying twist their words into a grant of permission, if that's your angle that's fine. But you then have to apply the same pedantic exactness across the entire phrase. Which is where you fall down. You can't half apply it.

You could say "well you can't prove they're *not* doing that". Fine. You also can't prove I'm not also recording it for the purposes of training people in my own organisation. Or even just to train myself to be better at making such calls.

I think it would be quite easy to prove that you weren't operating a company training people.
And of you were in fact recording the call to train people in your own organisation you'd be breaking the law as the other party hasn't consented to being recorded - the operator isn't played the "calls may be recorded message". So he hasn't consented to TJHook Ltd making recordings of him.

Number (1) is more realistic. And remember "Contra proferentem" - ambiguity in a contract/agreement is interpreted to the advantage of the person who doesn't draft it. Either way, neither interpretation specifies who is or isn't allowed to record the call.

You can't add restrictions/conditions beyond those agreed. Otherwise, when I agreed to pay you €x monthly for a service, I obviously meant it only applied to those months when I used the service *a lot*. So I won't be paying this month.

You are making a false dichotomy.
The much more logical implication is that are using may in the sense of "might be" record the call. Once that's the implication there is no change of "contract" at any point.
The restriction only comes about because you are trying to reinterpret it as "you may". Again, you're interpretation, not theirs.


You have a better chance argue single party consent is legal. But the above approach, trying to imply that the operator and company gave consent is on very shaky foundations.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think if the operator wants only itself to record the call, it is unwise to use the passive voice. If the intention is that "we can record this call but you may not", then the message should not start "this call may be recorded . . . ", but rather "we may record this call . . .".

It's not about whether they want to restrict recording (they can't afaik).

Somebody not explicated giving permission, isn't the same as then saying you cannot do it.
I was pointing out that trying twist implicit permission is a bad line of argument to go down. And unnecessary.

Plus, I'm not sure that too much weight can be placed on words like ". . . for training and quality control purposes". After all, the recording is often used for other purposes, e.g. evidentiary purposes in relation to a dispute over what was said, and nobody objects that this is not permitted. At best, these words indicate the organisation's motivation for recording calls, but they don't necessarily operate as a limitation on the use that can be made of the recording.

Agreed.
The reason why you do something doesn't relate to it becoming evidence in future.

As others have said, when it's an individual consumer versus a commercial organisation, and the commercial organisation is the one making the statement about recording, then any ambiguity or lack of precision is going to be resolved in the consumer's favour, and against the organisation. I think if the organisation seeks a state of affairs in which they may or may not record the call for their own reasons, as they choose, but the other party may not record the call for any reason, they would need to make that last bit pretty clear.

Firstly, I believe single party consent applies in Ireland. An individual recording a call they are a party to gives their consent, and are free to go. But where both parties must consent it gets fuzzy.

And a corporate entity is a third party to the call and the one recording two individuals. Hence the message at the start, that you give consent by continuing, etc.
But the person on the other end of the call isn't the one who recording the call, gave the message, or consented. In a situation where both parties need to consent, I can see a situation arising where their individual rights being affected.
Again not in Ireland, and unlikely to be an issue in action against the corporate party.

tjhook wrote: »

So, correct me if I've misunderstood, the way you interpret the statement

You misunderstood.

They are using may in the sense of “might happen”.
Your interpretation is a different meaning. “You may do X”
That interpretation might not be possibly in many phrasing’s.

There is no need to change their words like that as one party consent is permitted in Irish law. It’s that simple. The convoluted justification relies on an entirely passive statement. Which might not happen every time. There’s no need.

(a) the company can record a specific call, and subsequently may or may not use it for training purposes only, quality purposes only, or both.

(b) For the customer, it's not enough to want to record it for quality purposes only. And the word "training" can only occur for the purposes of "operating a company training people", not for individuals.

The difference is the company made a statement.
Your hypothetical company did not.

The person this hypothetical company would be recording was not a party to the “may be recorded” message. They haven’t consented or been informed by your hypothetical company.
Additional the company may not be considered a party to the call. So single party permission might not apply.

Bikerman2019 wrote: »

Interesting thread, one of many on this subject, but here is a straight question.

Can I record a call with a company so I have a record of he said/she said, in order to prevent any misunderstandings down the line.

Also, providing I am one of the two people on the call, can I record it even if the other party says "I do not consent"

In theory of course......

Ta very much.

Yes. Yes. IANAL