un1boy - N1 issued for breach of CCA request

[MoonHawk]

whenever I tell them that I am recording they say they won't talk to me and hang up, lmao!!!

Me too most of the time. Or the DCAs tend to argue that it is illigal.

 

I would start the recording just before you tell them, then keep a copy of the recordings along with when they were. When you have enough of them, write to them to explain why they are unwilling to speak on the phone when recorded and then report them.

 

Best Wishes

MoonHawk

[Its WAR]

Why tell them they are being recorded? Probably only if you intend to produce the recording.But you could rely on transcripting the recording and rely on the "notes" of the conversation, couldnt you?

[MoonHawk]

Why tell them they are being recorded? Probably only if you intend to produce the recording.But you could rely on transcripting the recording and rely on the "notes" of the conversation, couldnt you?

I tell them so I am able to produce it in court and give to any authorities if need arises. Transcript can always be argued. Also it annoys them

 

Best Wishes

MoonHawk

[un1boy]

Hehe

[The Lantana]

As I understand it, it's not illegal to record and you don't have to tell them you are doing it. It is illegal to tamper with the telephone network, but if you're using a recorder that attaches to your own phone, then you're okay.

 

That said, by telling them they get really annoyed - as Moonhawk points out....

 

Hehehehe!

 

Regards

 

 

Lantana

[MoonHawk]

A little complicated because of the various legislation that has a say in this, but from my understanding this is how it stands (roughly )

 

I believe it falls under

• Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
  
• Telecommunications (Lawful Business Practice)(Interception of Communications) Regulations 2000
  
• Data Protection Act 1998
  
• Telecommunications (Data Protection and Privacy) Regulations 1999
  
• Human Rights Act 1998
  

RIPA 2000 allows individuals to record their own communications provided that the recording is for their own use. Recording or monitoring are only prohibited where some of the contents of the communication - which can be a phone conversation or an e-mail - are made available to a third party, i.e. someone who was neither the caller or sender nor the intended recipient of the original communication. So you can record the call and use the transcript, but you can not use the actual recording in court, without the other party being informed.

 

Oftel (now Ofcom) had stated that you do not have to let people know that you intend to record their telephone conversations, provided you are not intending to make the contents of the communication available to a third party. If you are, you will need to inform the person you are recording. This is governed by The Self Provision Licence (granted to you under section 7 of Telecommunications Act 1984), and it is a criminal offence to fall foul of it.

 

From OFTEL PUBLISHES NEW GUIDANCE ON RECORDING OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS:

 

The Privacy of Messages condition of the Self-Provision Licence (SPL) and the Telecommunication Services Licence (TSL).

 

(7.1) The Licensee shall not use or allow to be used any Apparatus comprised in or connected to the Applicable Systems (except for Apparatus connected to or comprised in the Applicable Systems for the purpose of law enforcement or in the interest of national security) which is capable of recording, silently monitoring (except for monitoring where the meaningful content of the Message is not monitored) or intruding into Live Speech Telephone Calls, unless he complies with paragraphs 7.3 and 7.4. This paragraph shall not apply if the Licensee is an Emergency Organisation or if the Director has consented to the Licensee not complying with any or all of paragraphs 7.3 and 7.4 and has not withdrawn that consent.

 

(7.2) The provisions of each consent given under paragraph 7.1 shall be entered in the register kept by the Director for the purpose of section 19 of the Act.

 

(7.3) The Licensee shall make every reasonable effort to inform parties to whom or by whom a Live Speech Telephone Call is transmitted before recording, silent monitoring or intrusion into such Call has begun that the Live Speech Telephone Call is to be or may be recorded, silently monitored or intruded into.

 

(7.4) The Licensee shall maintain a record of the means by which parties to whom or by whom a Live Speech Telephone Call is transmitted have been informed that such Call is to be or may be recorded, silently monitored or intruded into. The Licensee shall furnish to the Director such information on request.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Best Wishes

MoonHawk

[shane5408]

A very thorough critique of telecoms legislation moonhawk!!

 

Yes the other party has to be informed of recording if it is to be used in court / passed on to other parties. However, if you tell them over the phone you are recording they will most likely hang up and not call again, it tends to annoy them. What i did was mention it in one of my letters i sent to them, particulary in a 10 page belter of a letter where i expressed my outrage at their business practices cca non compliance etc etc. Chances are they didn't even read the whole document and if they did probably forgot about it! This way i have written transcripts i can use which can be backed up by the recorded conversations should they be required! You also have proof you informed them you would be recording!

 

 

regards,

shane

[MoonHawk]

Thanks Shane.

 

Also an excellent use of the law there Shane. I have made a note

 

Best Wishes

MoonHawk

[un1boy]

Ok, so I get a threat of legal action from the bank, for the account which TS are investigating and I fax a copty of the letter to TS.

 

TS told me that they have called the bank's sols and told them to freeze action on the account. TS wrote to the bank 3 times, with no answer so the sols told TS to twrite to them and that they will reply........now, it is getting interesting!!

[shane5408]

Ok, so I get a threat of legal action from the bank, for the account which TS are investigating and I fax a copty of the letter to TS.

 

TS told me that they have called the bank's sols and told them to freeze action on the account. TS wrote to the bank 3 times, with no answer so the sols told TS to twrite to them and that they will reply........now, it is getting interesting!!

 

 

wait, you're being threatened with legal action from the very bank you've instigated a claim against? On what grounds are their threats based on?

 

It might be an automatic system generated template that the banks send out automatically. No excuse whatsoever nevertheless!

 

regards,

shane

 

Incompetence of these people is quite unbelievable at times!

[un1boy]

wait, you're being threatened with legal action from the very bank you've instigated a claim against? On what grounds are their threats based on?

 

It might be an automatic system generated template that the banks send out automatically. No excuse whatsoever nevertheless!

 

regards,

shane

 

Incompetence of these people is quite unbelievable at times!

 

I know, I know - it's a solicitor's letter saying that because I've not paid, they are taking me to court. Even though I have told them at least 10 times they can't take me to court.

 

The solicitors apparently know nothing about it. I have given them the claim number, but they want all the paperwork, but that is not my problem; they have already defended, so someone has the original claim.

 

I have an order for my claim that they need to enter an amended defence......not only that, but Trading Standards have been writing t the bank in order to question them under caution regarding this account, 3 letters with no reply from the bank - and they still have the cheek to threaten legal action - it's hilarious!!

 

They were meant to issue about a week ago, but keep calling me instead- their actions are illegal, yet no-one does anything about it!!

[Having_A_Knightmare]

Great thread subbing..........................

[un1boy]

Had 2 calls from the solciitors again today; I ignored them and they didn't

even have the courtesy to leave a message!!

 

I got a letter telling me to call them within 24 hours (letter dated 10th October, lmao!)

 

I called them and left a message telling them that I had already issued legal actiona gainst them and told them to look at the papers they must have been served.

[Having_A_Knightmare]

un1

 

I still cant get my head around what you are actually claiming for.

 

Could you explain as easy as you can

 

Cheers

 

 

HAK

[un1boy]

I'm basically claiming that the judge order the agreement unenforcable (which he has to).

 

It shouldn't have got ot court, however they have not settled so i had to issue my N1.

 

Does this make sense?

[Having_A_Knightmare]

Right>> A little bit.

 

I will have a good read through tommorow at work and will repost.

 

Thanks

 

HAK

[un1boy]

Right>> A little bit.

 

I will have a good read through tommorow at work and will repost.

 

Thanks

 

HAK

 

I'm sorry if you think I'm being rude - I've got a few things on at mo.

 

Read through this, any questions you have (relevant to this thread) post here and we will all try to help you and answer them.

 

It's easier if oyu compile a list of things you don't understand, than me trying to explain everything in detail - I'll be here all nite and the thread would be about a mile long!!

[un1boy]

Guys,

 

I have no idea what is going on, let me update you:

 

The defendant failed to enter judgment within the time ordered (the second lot of 28 days).

 

I enter a judgment request and on the same day they enter an application request.

 

The application is to have my other claim (for the overdraft) consolidated with this one.

 

I then get told that the Judge has given them a further 7 days to enter their defence, so my judgement can't be entered.

 

Now, I have written a letter into the couurt to say that I am unhappy with the management of my claim, and that it was stayed when it shouldn't be etc, the judge saw the letter and still gave them a further 7 days.

 

I now have to attend a hearing to dicsuss whether the claims should be consolidated (even though they are seperate issues) - even thought the court have no other option but to render the agreement unenforcable under section 127(3).

 

I think I'm going to put a letter together to have the order struck out, putting in section 127(3) etc. I'll post it here for checking, if that's ok?

 

Can anyone explain to me what they mean by consolidation?

[tomterm8]

Guys,

 

I have no idea what is going on, let me update you:

 

The defendant failed to enter judgment within the time ordered (the second lot of 28 days).

 

I enter a judgment request and on the same day they enter an application request.

 

The application is to have my other claim (for the overdraft) consolidated with this one.

 

I then get told that the Judge has given them a further 7 days to enter their defence, so my judgement can't be entered.

 

Now, I have written a letter into the couurt to say that I am unhappy with the management of my claim, and that it was stayed when it shouldn't be etc, the judge saw the letter and still gave them a further 7 days.

 

I now have to attend a hearing to dicsuss whether the claims should be consolidated (even though they are seperate issues) - even thought the court have no other option but to render the agreement unenforcable under section 127(3).

 

I think I'm going to put a letter together to have the order struck out, putting in section 127(3) etc. I'll post it here for checking, if that's ok?

 

Can anyone explain to me what they mean by consolidation?

 

if there are two cases between the same parties, then normally the court hears both cases together. this is not unusual, and such a request would normally be granted by the court.

[shane5408]

i don't think the cases need be similar, judge prob just wants to hear them together

[un1boy]

if there are two cases between the same parties, then normally the court hears both cases together. this is not unusual, and such a request would normally be granted by the court.

 

Oh I see, I get it.

 

I didn't understand what they are requesting.

 

It's a pain in the a** though - I have to attend a hearing. They are stalling, holding off the inevitable and I am disgusted that the Judge has given them even more time!

[un1boy]

i don't think the cases need be similar, judge prob just wants to hear them together

 

I see, but why does it need a hearing?

[gill5blue]

subbing

[ncf355]

This is just typical of the kind of cr** going on

 

I had a case where I entered judgement, because it was with an element of "at courts discretion" they fast tracked it

 

Some months later, the Defendant applied to be able to set aside judgement and enter a Defence - it was allowed!

 

It seems as you say the banks just push everything to the limit and know the courts will allow them more time (mainly under the "overriding objective" rule)

 

I have a similar thing going through soon that I cant talk about at the mo, but I'll eat my hat if my prediction is wrong

 

And if I'm right I will well and truly throw my toys out the pram

[tomterm8]

I see, but why does it need a hearing?

 

I think they took your letter as an objection. there are valid reasons why someone would not want them combined together, especially cost implications, since doing so may bump the claim up from small claims to fast track, or fast track to the dreaded multi-track.