Privacy Act and Recording Conversations

ibuy on 28/03/2019 - 23:22
Last edited 28/03/2019 - 23:22

Looking for some advice on this. The rules vary from state to state.

I was in the bank today and wanted to close two accounts and have the money transferred to another account.

The people in the bank were quite aggressive asking me to transfer my loans and accounts to them.

They also wouldn't provide me with copies of documents that I had signed to close my account.

I requested copies and they refused. The conversation became quite heated and I began to record the conversation.

They saw that my recorder on my phone was running and demanded that I delete the conversation and that it was against the privacy act and they said that they could sue me and also that they could have me banned from being a customer of the bank!!!

I was not sure at the time where I stood and deleted the conversation.

I then did a few searches online and articles suggest that it is not illegal in Victoria to record conversations and that the privacy act probably did not apply given that the discussion was not private but taking place in the open area of the bank. For a conversation to be private it must be in an area where it is not open to others to listen. Otherwise it is not private and the privacy act does not apply.

Can anyone shed some light on this. Apart from the way things were handled and the refusal to provide me with copies (or at the time, even to take pictures of the documents I had just signed being disallowed) I want to know where I stand in regard to recording conversations in a bank branch which was not in a private room where only myself and the bank officer can discuss the matter. I was recording our conversation in the reception area of the bank.

Any light that can be shed on this would be appreciated!

Financial

Comments

  • try2bhelpful on 28/03/2019 - 23:29

    Which bank company was this? I think you only need to inform the other people you are recording the converstation for it to be OK. I would tell them you are doing it for training purposes.

    There is a banking Ombudsman you can talk to.

    https://www.fos.org.au/about-us/what-we-do/

    • ibuy on 28/03/2019 - 23:47
      +2

      Thanks for your suggestion.

      Lol the answer is a bit obvious now.

      I had a look at a few articles - here's what I found

      http://www.mcleods.com.au/news/local-government-updates/reco…

      https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/someones-listeni…

      https://www.mst.com.au/legality-of-secretly-recording-conver…

      According to the last link, it is legal in Victoria to record conversations without the other party knowing.

      • spackbace on 29/03/2019 - 00:07

        Note that publication or communication of any recording of a private conversation is prohibited in all jurisdictions.

        In other words, playing back that recording to a 3rd party is prohibited.

        So you recording it would've been pointless anyway. Besides, it's an argument, what would you have done with it?!

        • Diji1 on 29/03/2019 - 00:38

          Is that what communication means?

        • Quantumcat on 29/03/2019 - 08:13
          +3

          what would you have done with it?!

          Remembered the exact wording they used for a complaint later?

        • spal on 29/03/2019 - 08:58

          IMO one should be able to make a transcript of the recording. As long as the recording itself is not shared with a third party it is okay. If you record a conversation without knowledge of the parties and you are looking to use it as an evidence or share with third parties, then prior to recording you will require a warrant from Court. This will fall under the telephone interception laws used by law enforcement agencies. So, if you don't want to share the conversation it is not breaching anything. Also, you can share the recording with the parties alien to the conversation only with the permission of all the parties to the conversation.

  • Diji1 on 29/03/2019 - 00:37
    +2

    Complain to the Ombudsman immediately.

  • [Deactivated] on 29/03/2019 - 00:45
    +22

    Something tells me there is much more to this story. Also a lot of creative changes to actual events.

    I mean… OP goes to the bank to close accounts. Most adults here would have done this at some stage. The protocol is to see if there something they can do to keep the customer, if not, offer an open end like a friendly gesture to think of them should their assistance be needed in future.

    I don't think I've ever heard of anyone going to a bank and been told to transfer all loans to them, much less when looking to close accounts.

    Also, when do people ask for a copy of a document they just signed? If someone really needed to retain a copy, they'd just make a copy before signing. You'd only ever request a copy of a signed document if it is co-signed or signed by someone else.

    Lastly, you're in a bank. People are communicating sensitive information to tellers and staff may be discussing confidential details in the background. Recording audio and/or video is a huge privacy and security breach.

    All this kerfuffle and the bank wants to ban you. The bank that a few minutes ago was trying to get you to move more business to them. The one that a few minutes prior you were trying to close accounts with.

    • ibuy on 29/03/2019 - 04:53
      +2

      I went to close accounts because the accounts were advised that they would be hit with a $5 fee each month.

      They printed closure forms for me to sign. I signed them and wanted copies.

      They refused to let me take photos of the signed forms with my phone and would not give me a copy. I have had problems in the past where the accounts were not closed so I wanted proof of the closure with my signature and date. I didn’t trust their syatems because the computer kept freezing up whilst I was there.

      According to the law in Victoria (my interpretation) unless I am in a private room with no one else to hear the conversation then it is not private and recordable. But I’m not a lawyer so don’t know if my interpretation is correct. There have been cases regarding what is a private space to comply with privacy laws and being in the reception area doesn’t qualify as private because every man and his dog could hear the conversation. I’m trying to get clarification on this.

      The bank people became narky when they discovered part way through that I had recorded some of the conversation.

      The surveillance devices act 1999 (vic) over rides the privacy laws as state laws have precedence. Hence the links provided in my last post, eapecially the one from the MST lawyers website. You don’t need all parties consent. The ability to record without consent varies from state to state.

      I logged a complaint with the bank’s complaint by phone and they said the treatment should have never been like that. Making comments to ban a customer when the bank officer has no right to do so is overstepping their authority. They’re not a manager. Anyway let’s see what happens.

      The irony is that they still stuffed up anyway because they opened a new account and transferred my money into a new account at the same branch. I’m going to have to get that closed too… here we go again!

      • whooah1979 on 29/03/2019 - 05:11
        -1

        unless I am in a private room with no one else to hear the conversation

        The bank branch is on private land that is open to the public. The owner of the premises, occupants or agents may ask you to stop recording.

      • [Deactivated] on 29/03/2019 - 12:50

        Making comments to ban a customer when the bank officer has no right to do so is overstepping their authority.

        It's a private institution. You're not privy to their operating protocol. You may be right, you may be wrong but it is irrelevant. You don't have a right to be in there if you have been asked to leave by a representative of the company, ie. anyone with their uniform or identifiable evidence of employment.

        I'm not going to interrogate.

        Here are the possible scenarios.

        1. Everything happened as you said it did. You're innocent in all this. There's someone who is telling you to do the opposite of your intentions and you've signed forms that you cannot get back and you're still there arguing about your rights to be in the building. And now you have a new account too. If you managed to allow yourself to proceed beyond the point the banker tells you to transfer your loans, I suspect you're not capable of rational thought, and by extension rational retelling of events.

        2. You went in to a bank and started exercising your imaginary rights and somehow ended up being talked into something you didn't plan on when you walked in. Everything else is a whole lot of coping mechanisms at play.

        3. You walked into a bank and you're held against your will, made to sign some forms, abused and later set free just to be threatened with a ban.

        If it is number 3, you need to call the police. Unlawful detention is a very serious matter.

        • ibuy on 29/03/2019 - 12:55
          +1

          No one asked me to leave. That’s mis-interpreting the situation.

          My primay query is do I have the right to record the conversation with the bank officer without their consent. Based on the links apparently I do.

          • [Deactivated] on 29/03/2019 - 12:57
            -2

            @ibuy: Fine.

            They threatened to make you leave and not re-enter.

            Your application of "rights" is still incorrect.

            • ibuy on 29/03/2019 - 12:58

              @[Deactivated]: In what way is my application of rights incorrect.

              How is it when those current affair shows do covert recordings and filmings on other private premises?

              • whooah1979 on 29/03/2019 - 13:21
                +1

                @ibuy:

                current affair shows do covert recordings

                These media networks have teams of solicitors fighting injunction more than some people have hot dinners.
                https://www.google.com/search?q=today+tonight+injunction&cli…

              • Serapis on 29/03/2019 - 23:54

                @ibuy: Oh lawd please don't use them as an example…

                • [Deactivated] on 30/03/2019 - 11:17
                  -1

                  @Serapis: I remember watching a few episodes over the decade.

                  It's just a show on "Do you not see this scenario causes emotional responses!" yelled repetitively with only minor changes to the wording.

                  A lot of the time, they are targetting someone with some sort of misconduct and representing someone else with overwhelming ignorance.

      • Wallyt99 on 30/03/2019 - 06:50

        State laws do NOT overrule federal laws.

        It is on fact exactly the opposite. A federal law will always overrule a state law unless the the state can show in the High court that the federal law is invalid.

        • ibuy on 30/03/2019 - 08:55

          In relation to recoeding conversations apparently they do. Based on research done over several websites the laws relating to recording vary from state to state even though federal laws may not allow recording of conversations. Eg. WA does not allow recording of conversations but in VIC apparently it is legal to do so. I’m not 100% sure because the privacy act seems to be subject to the devices recording act or similar act in each state and the recording rights vary.

          • Wallyt99 on 30/03/2019 - 10:15

            @ibuy: No - it's never ever (ever!) the case. The question is though - are the laws in conflict?

            If the states put a higher test / higher standard in place - it does not invalidate the federal law. Both laws can exist. The state laws apply in the state. The federal law sets a minimum standard nationally.

            There are complications like - jurisdiction and who does the law apply to - but blanket statements like 'state laws overule federal laws' as you used are plainly wrong and can mislead people.

            • ibuy on 30/03/2019 - 21:58
              +1

              @Wallyt99: The intention is not to mislead. However in this case if you read the update towards the end of this post it is apparently legal to record without the consent of all parties in Victoria so long as you are a participant of the discussion. This was confirmed by the complaints people of the bank. I am happy to be corrected where necessary. As I said, I’m not a lawyer and hence the reason for this post. The laws where in conflict, in this case, seem to demonstrate that the State law (recording devices act VIC 1999) override the Privacy act which was the law quoted to me by the bank officer. In this case they have possibly referred to the wrong legislation. I repeat. I’m not a lawyer so only go by what information I have read and received as a layman.

              • SirFlibbled on 01/04/2019 - 12:19
                +1

                @ibuy: The Privacy Act and the Recording Devices Act are unlikely to conflict. Firstly, the Privacy Act doesn't apply to you as you're not in trade or commerce with a turnover of more than $2M (well I'm assuming this. Secondly, it's concerned about the collection and storage of personal identifiable material, not the recording of conversations. If the records could be used to identify a person, then maybe just maybe it could apply, but it's unlikely.

                I used to work in Privacy Law a few years ago, so things may have changed and I'm too lazy to look it up as I don't recall any significant changes in this area otherwise I would have taken a passing interest in it.

                Wally is completely right about conflict. It would be unconstitutional for a state law to take precendence over a federal law where there is a conflict (not that there's a conflict here).

                • ibuy on 01/04/2019 - 19:18

                  @SirFlibbled: Thanks for your reply. As I have said I’m not a lawyer so happy if someone can shed light on the correct answer to my question and outline the correct operation of law.

                  So this means that the bank staff are quoting legislation that is not related to recording a conversation and has no bearing on me? And that means their threat of being able to sue me for recording the conversation is unwarranted and incorrect?

                  The I do have the right to record a conversation without the consent of the other party?

                  And the other party cannot make me delete it?

                  How does the surveillance devices act VIC work in this case?

                  Many articles say that the ability to record depends on what state you are in.

                  Thanks again.

                  • SirFlibbled on 09/04/2019 - 14:01

                    @ibuy: Sorry for the long delay in responding. That's correct, they are quoting legislation which wouldn't apply specifically to you which, to me, shows a lack of understanding of the law. They've simply been trained to say it.

                    Whether they can sue you depends on the Vic Surveillance Act laws which I have nfi and not much interest in reading it. But it would be the relevant act in this instance.

                    • ibuy on 10/04/2019 - 21:20

                      @SirFlibbled: Thanks for that. The bank acknowledged that recording is permitted in Victoria. The area manager also said they did the wrong thing and there was a training gap. So they haven’t listened carefully during their training session.

                      The down side of not informing them is that you can’t use it anywhere with the possible exception that the courts demand it be released.

                      However I only wanted it for my records so if anything went wrong I could play the discussion back to the manager and in this case also let them know the language and tone of voice that was being used.

                      I posted some more follow up notes at the end of this.

                      I appreciate your help with this.

                      I hope this helps others who may end up in a similar situation one day.

            • SirFlibbled on 01/04/2019 - 12:14

              @Wallyt99: Not sure why someone downvoted you as you'e right.

  • jjjaar on 29/03/2019 - 02:37
    -1

    probably did not apply

    Your use of the word “probably” is a bit concerning

    the discussion was not private but taking place in the open area of the bank

    It’s still not public space. Public is on the street or in a public building like a train station or library, not a privately owned building.

    • ibuy on 29/03/2019 - 05:12
      +1

      I’m not a lawyer so I am using the word probably

      What under the law constitutes a public space for the purpose of privacy is different to what is generally accepted. Especially under the privacy act. The tribunal has considered that an open space in a private organization where a non participant to a conversation can hear what is going on is considered to be public under the law. It’s no longer private regardless of the fact it is on a private property. However this is not in a bank but in the case of an employee/employee relationship. I’m not sure if the same applies to a customer/supplier relationship.

      I’m hoping someone out there who is a lawyer can answer this question.

      The reason being is that nowadays so much offensive language and he said she said goes on the only way is to record conversations to stop this happening. Then everyone watches what they say and do. It stops people being obnoxious and rude and makes sure they do things properly.

  • elgrande on 29/03/2019 - 06:08
    +4

    1) The Privacy Act is for corporations, not individuals.

    2) They cannot sue, there is no tort of privacy in Australia.

    3) As you are in VIC, it is an offence to use a listening device under Surveillance Devices Act 1999 (s6.1), punishable by prison.

    4) I would argue it was a private conversation, not a public one, given the financial nature and it being located inside the bank, i.e. would you normally expect privacy when discussing your transaction accounts with the bank employee?

  • brendanm on 29/03/2019 - 08:00
    +10

    I seriously doubt your version of this story. It simply doesn't make sense.

    • ibuy on 29/03/2019 - 12:50

      The bank staff don’t make sense. That is more the case. As stated below I’m not sure what more you want me to say. As that’s what happened.

      Other banks I have been to have provided me with a copy of the account closure.

      • brendanm on 29/03/2019 - 14:09
        +1

        The experience you have posted goes against every single interaction I've had with any bank ever. I'd say it does for most posters here. Even going from "aggressive" to then telling you to never come back borders on ridiculous.

        • ibuy on 29/03/2019 - 17:06

          You are lucky to not have such issues with a bank for such a simple matter. i hope no one else has these issues. Please re read my post carefully. I did not say that they said never to come back. I said that they said That they said that I could be banned. The person serving me - his work mate chimed in with that comment which had nothing to do with him. He interfered in a private conversation.

          • whooah1979 on 29/03/2019 - 19:05
            +1

            @ibuy:

            I said that they said That they said that I could be banned.

            What?

          • Seedy seed on 31/03/2019 - 10:03

            @ibuy: He interfered in a private conversation.

            And now its private. Get a life mate, your likely a troll and if not you were likely as off as this whole post refusing to listen…

            If this story is true i have no doubt it was your fault 90%

    • peterpeterpumpkin on 30/03/2019 - 09:09
      +1

      Nah, I've witnessed similar situations myself.

      Here's old recorded footage of just a child, who was aggressively pursued by head bankers of the Fidelity Fiduciary Bank for his small deposit:

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XxyB29bDbBA

      • EmCKay on 30/03/2019 - 22:39

        I'd forgotten about poor Michael!

  • crashloaded on 29/03/2019 - 09:03
    +1

    I believe you're allowed to record any conversation that you are a direct party to, whether it's private or not. You also don't have to tell the persons you're recording them.

    The recording can be used in court but not much else.

  • Donaldhump on 29/03/2019 - 09:09
    +1

    Why not get more closure forms take photo then hand in and take photo again

    • ibuy on 29/03/2019 - 12:38
      +1

      I tried to take photos and he grabbed the forms off me and held them to his chest. He said that was not legal for me to take photos.

      • [Deactivated] on 29/03/2019 - 12:58
        +2

        Are you sure you walked into a bank and not… an interrogation chamber?

        • billy77 on 30/03/2019 - 09:54

          It was some other chamber and the safe word was fluggaenkoecchicebolsen.

      • whooah1979 on 29/03/2019 - 13:26

        the forms

        These documents are proprietary and confidential. The proprietor or their agents may take reasonable steps to keep them private.

      • Donaldhump on 29/03/2019 - 18:33

        so gets some more, go outside, dill in, take photos, video yourself going back in.

        it is not illegal to take photos of a document. tell him you spoke to your solicitor and he advised it was ok.

      • ibuy on 30/03/2019 - 08:41

        I forgot to mention the form was printed from the computer. So I am unable to obtain copies of these forms to take photos

    • Wystri Warrick on 29/03/2019 - 20:16

      Hello uncle :D.

  • Seraphin7 on 29/03/2019 - 09:51

    So much here simply does not add up. There is no way this is the entirety of the story.

    • ibuy on 29/03/2019 - 12:38

      I’m not sure what else you want me to say. That was all that happened.

      • Seraphin7 on 29/03/2019 - 12:51

        Well it is entirely implausible that you would go into a bank requesting a money transfer and an account closure and be immediately met with "aggressive" staff (apparently more than one staff member) wanting you to transfer other loans/accounts "to them".

        • ibuy on 29/03/2019 - 13:09

          Well that’s what happened. Remember the banking enquiry has knocked the banks for poorly treating people. My experience is “mild” compared to other people’s experiences.

          • Seraphin7 on 29/03/2019 - 13:16

            @ibuy: I am more than well appraised of the banking enquiry … and banking protocols in general.

            What you've described is not in anyway "mild" … it is extreme to the point of disbelief.

            • whooah1979 on 29/03/2019 - 13:34

              @Seraphin7: We've always found banking employees to be very helpful. From meeting and greeting, to opening and closing accounts. Keeping their high paying jobs is a big motivator to keep things civilised.

            • ibuy on 29/03/2019 - 17:10
              +1

              @Seraphin7: You are lucky to not have experienced this. I have over 30 years in the finance, banking, consulting, tax and accounting industries and have experienced bad service as well as service beyond expectations.

              You have the right to not believe me, however you were not there to see what happened.

              I am asking for constructive assistance - not in regard to the service, but in regard to my rights to record a conversation. That’s all I want to know. The facts surrounding the issue are not that relevanr, it just puts the reason for wanting to record the conversation into an appropriate context.

              • Seraphin7 on 30/03/2019 - 07:43
                +2

                @ibuy:

                I have […] experienced bad service as well as service beyond expectations.

                So has, I would suggest, everyone here in engagement with practically every industry. There is a massive difference between "bad service" and the apocryphal story you've outlined here.

                You state that "throughout the whole situation I remained calm and showed empathy to the employee", yet somehow multiple staff became "aggressive" and then subsequently the conversation became "heated". Presumably the aggression and heat were coming solely from the staff as you remained calm throughout. Why would staff become aggressive and heated (when they are trained to do the exact opposite) when you are entirely calm and empathetic?

                Just. Not. Believable.

                • ibuy on 30/03/2019 - 08:24
                  +2

                  @Seraphin7: You were not there. You cannot judge believeability unless you were there. Whether you believe me it is not the point. If you don’t believe it why continue with unconstructive and derisive comments? What benefit are you achieving? You have chosen not to believe what happened and you have every right to make that point, however please move on. These comments are distracting my original query of am I allowed to record a conversation without the knowledge of both parties? I have mentioned in other posts here the events surrounding the recording provides context for wanting to do so; the events provide a background to the question which is a valid one not only for a bank but in any other situation where you want proof of the discussion so there is no he said she said later on. The recording makes everything black and white.

                  You make comment that they are trained. However not everybody follows the training they are given. This is why in this case a breakdown happened. In every company training received is not always followed. You would be aware of this which is why things like this happen. People are not robots and their emotions and thought processes when receiving training and then putting that training into practice is not always exactly the same as another person. You can train someone however they may not follow the training. No different to an army which is probably more regimented. Soldiers are trained however they don’t always act or follow the training. For some people no amount of training works. Their social, cultural backgrounds and beliefs and intelligence levels, amongst other things may not fit with the culture of the organzation they have joined.

                  They were agressive at the start trying to get me to transfer my loans saying that if I did that everything could be free. When I declined then they were not happy. When I recorded and they discovered it they became even more agressive. They were not calm and they were even more angry when they discovered that they were being recorded without what they believe was their consent. (Which based on my update - I did not require their consent).

                  Please keep the discussion related to the question. Your comments are going off topic and not assisting with the query about recording conversations. The title of this post was not about customer service or the staff, the heading was about recording conversations.

                  I appreciate you have had your say, and have every entitlement to do so. However it doesn’t help resolve the question I have posted - to seek confirmation or otherwise whether I can record a conversation.

                  • Seraphin7 on 31/03/2019 - 11:11

                    @ibuy: If you want to keep the conversation to whether or not you are able to record a conversation, that should have been the sole topic of your enquiry … something along the lines of "Am I able to record conversations with bank staff without their consent?"

                    You have conflated this with this carry on about staff behaviour as if the precursor to your act of recording somehow changes the legality of it. You have chosen to raise the issues of others' behaviour in order to provide some level of justification for your own behaviour.

                    The actions of others in this situation (and the vast majority of other situations anyone is likely to encounter) do not affect the legality or otherwise of your actions. The only broad instance I can think of that goes against this principle is in instances of self-defence.

                    If you want people to stick to a narrow question, pose your question in those narrow terms. As soon as you bring other matters into the conversation, expect people to comment on them especially when it is probably that your actions are a significant contributor to those other matters.

                    Take it as a lesson learned.

                    • ibuy on 31/03/2019 - 19:23

                      @Seraphin7: Almost every other participant to this post has attempted to constructively help by posting replies relating to the topic which is “Privacy act and recording conversations”.

                      All you have done is just continually attack my posts and focus on the wrong part of the discussion with no constructive comment and attempts to reply to you in a logical and orderly manner have just sidetracked things more such as your recent last post about staff being trained to handle this which onviously was not the case because if they were properly trained this post wpuld have never happened. The bank has already acknowledged that their behaviour was not up to standard and the matter was poorly handled and also provided compensation. I did not advise this earlier because that really wasn’t the issue. The focus was to concentrate on the ability to record conversations.

                      The posts made by you have gone off topic because you have not read the heading and the fact that I have tried to redirect you to answer the question has not been successful as you appear to not have taken notice of the original title of the post. I have explained many times that the background has provided the context for the title of this post. It is in no way a post about customer service or treatment of a customer.

                      I think you are just trying to agitate and attack me and that doesn’t solve the problem. It’s more like you are trying to bully someone for posting an enquiry that you don’t like. You have acknowledged that service from a bank can be poor as it can be good, so why continue to suggest that the experience I had could not happen? If you were not there then you cannot prove it did not happen. I am sorry you feel the way you do and hopefully you have the ability to look at both sides and not attack someone for expressing their opinion.

                      Agitating and attacking someone won’t resolve anything. And it just makes the entire ozbargain forum look bad because you are posting unhelpful replies and continue to attack someone for having a point of view. I’ve never said anything negative to you for having your point of view with the exception that you haven’t stuck to the topic. I have accepted it as you have a right to express a point of view to the point that it is not attacking someone and is on topic. However you should not attack a person or labor on a point which has no relevance to the question raised. I have tried to explain that the situation provides a context for making a recording.

                      If you really don’t want to assist, have your say but move on please. You really haven’t offered a constructive reply to resolve the question about whether recording conversations is permitted in any of your replies which is the title of this post.

  • adam on 29/03/2019 - 13:50
    +1

    Nothing to do with Privacy Act. Might have something to do with the Surveillance Devices Act(s)

    • ibuy on 29/03/2019 - 17:11

      Yes. I believe that may be the answer so the people in the bank may be quoting irrelevant acts. Thank you.

  • bobbified on 29/03/2019 - 17:07
    +1

    If this is the full story, I assume the banking staff simply mirrored the attitude you walked in with - because attitude is the only thing that doesnt show through these stories.

    • ibuy on 29/03/2019 - 17:18
      +1

      Throughout the whole situation I remained calm and showed empathy to the employee explaining that I understand he is following procedures. However the procedures were “dumb”. He couldn’t give me a copy of the account closure form because he said if I lost the form there was a risk of someone seeing the account numbers. However the irony is that he then gave me a piece of card listing my customer id and it had provision to list in all my bank accounts on the card which could list the accounts that were closed.

      What’s the risk difference in giving me the form I signed confirming I requested the accounts be closed and giving me a card with the same information on it??? I think the card he gave me is a greater risk because it has my customer id as well as the account numbers. If they were live account numbers then someone could hack my internet banking. Isn’t that more of a risk?

      I just wanted the forms with my signature on them so that there was no dispute that I was there that day and signed to close the account. Such a simple request and they made up the excuse about security risk and loss of the document, or even loss of my phone if I took a photo of it.

      • [Deactivated] on 30/03/2019 - 18:56

        Perhaps next time you can refuse to sign them unless they provide you with a copy of that documentation. I understand that I would like to have a record of what exactly I have signed for too. Good to know this now.

  • ibuy on 29/03/2019 - 17:21
    +2

    An update:

    I have now discussed this with the complaints department with the bank. The person on the phone said I am actually able to record the conversation without their knowledge. However if they find out then they can ask me to stop recording. They cannot ask me to delete the conversation but no further recording can be made. When I repeated this to them they said yes until I then said then they have breached the law forcing me to delete the recording and claiming privacy act disallowing it without consideration to State laws. The phone support person then doubled back and said that they would also need to check the reference - Surveillance Devices act 1999 (Victoria). The best thing is that our conversation is recorded by the bank so there is proof he confirmed that you can record discussions without the other party’s knowledge (assuming they can’t edit this). However as mentioned he has doubled back when I said the other staff member who made me delete the conversation has broken the law.

    I wait and see.

    • whooah1979 on 29/03/2019 - 19:13

      How did the other party allegedly force you to delete the recording and which law did they violate by doing so?

      • ibuy on 29/03/2019 - 22:26
        +1

        The bank officer said I would have to delete it now or I would be reported. I was unaware of my rights legally so did so.

        • whooah1979 on 29/03/2019 - 22:50

          So the there was no force. They allegedly demanded/made/insisted you to delete the recording and you did.

          • ibuy on 30/03/2019 - 08:28
            +1

            @whooah1979: Force does not need to be physical. They said I had to delete it now or I would be reported. Words can be force as can the action of being reported.

            • [Deactivated] on 30/03/2019 - 10:00
              +2

              @ibuy: Wow!

              Words can be force…

              It's this kind of "logic" that diminishes actual atrocities.

            • whooah1979 on 30/03/2019 - 10:15

              @ibuy: Force in law means unlawful violence. You've written nothing that supports the claim that they may have used force to make you perform an act.

              • ibuy on 30/03/2019 - 17:48

                @whooah1979: I think the full context of your comment is missing. I assume you may have looked up wikipedia which states as you have said. However it also talks about lawful compulsion of which the bank officer believed he had - lawful compulsion.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_(law)

                Violence does not have to occur for there to be force. For example, if you are bankrupt and you were forced by the bank to sell your home. There is no violence, but you were forced against your will to sell your home.

                • whooah1979 on 30/03/2019 - 18:15

                  @ibuy:

                  lawful compulsion of which the bank officer believed he had - lawful compulsion.

                  A bank officer is no more than a employee of the bank. They have no enforcement or judicial powers to lawfully compel another person to act against their will.

                • whooah1979 on 30/03/2019 - 18:34

                  @ibuy:

                  if you are bankrupt and you were forced by the bank to sell your home. There is no violence, but you were forced against your will to sell your home.

                  The bank is not forcing their customer to sell their home. The bank in this scenario is exercising their right under the NCCP 2009 to take steps to recover the debt. It's all done lawfully.

                  You may read more here.
                  https://www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au/publications/factsheets-and-…
                  http://www.doingittough.info/need-help-right-now/enforcement…

                  • ibuy on 31/03/2019 - 18:10

                    @whooah1979: It is still a form of forcing the customer to sell their home. It is normally against a customer’s will. They have used the law to force a customer to sell their home. So force does not have to be violence as originally posted by you. Enforcement of the law is a form of force where the person being being asked to do something against their will resists.

                    In any case if I did not delete it he said he would report me so that is forcing me to delete it. I reiterate, I have no intention of breaking the law so I complied as I was inaware of my rights at the time. I did not know if he would take it further by calling the police or other action aside from reporting me. I’m not interested in breaking the law so complied.

                    The links you have provided are of no use. They relate to NSW and I am in Victoria. So different rules could apply as from state to state there are slight differences in the law.

                    Kindly keep your comments on topic. The issue is whether I have the right to record the conversation in Victoria and you have not assisted in answering the query but are posting replies that are off topic. If you have some knowledge that can assist in relation to recording conversations face to face please share them so that everyone interested in this post can find the right answer.

    • Changskies on 29/03/2019 - 20:08

      So I missed the part where they forced you to delete the conversation. They asked you and you deleted it, they did not take your phone away and deleted them.

      • ibuy on 29/03/2019 - 22:30
        +2

        He said I could be reported and that was also when he said about being banned from the bank. He insisted at that moment I delete the recording and wanted to watch me delete it. As I said, I was not aware of my rights at the time and as I have no interest in breaking the law I did so.

  • oscargamer on 29/03/2019 - 19:49
    +4

    OP - read your post, none of the answers, so not sure if this has already been stated

    In VIC, so long as you are party to the conversation, you can record it, without telling the other party. It does not matter where that conversation takes place.

    • ibuy on 30/03/2019 - 08:32
      +1

      Thanks for that. I am trying to have this confirmed.

      If that is correct then the bank has broken the law by making me delete the conversation and saying I have no entitlement to record, and quoting the wrong act in relation to recording a conversation.

      As a customer we should be free to record conversations because sometimes things are out of control and the only proof is a recording.

      I was reading somewhere that employees can record conversations with employers to stop poor treatment. So I am wondering whether it is the same for customers.

      I’m waiting for the bank’s response.

  • happirt on 29/03/2019 - 21:49

    I guess this is where I should say 'buy bitcoin'

  • Wallyt99 on 30/03/2019 - 07:21
    +1

    Nice try Pauline.

  • gimme on 30/03/2019 - 09:46
    +1

    Before i comment, how old are you?

  • smpantsonfire on 30/03/2019 - 12:43

    Mods, can we get a voting system on the forums? Thanks!

  • zombrex on 30/03/2019 - 14:09

    I'm surprised people doubt the OP.
    The banks are absolute bastards, they will do anything to keep a hold of your money and make it difficult to close accounts. Best way to close an account is transfer all the money out first via internet banking and not deal with the workers who are not looking after your first interests.

  • CrocDundee on 30/03/2019 - 14:15

    "You done messed up A-aron!"

  • giles on 30/03/2019 - 16:44
    +1

    Regarding your initial issue – getting a copy of the form you signed – Australian Privacy Principle 12 sets out your rights to access any personal information held about you.

    I imagine that should be enough to get you copies of the form you signed, no?

    https://www.oaic.gov.au/individuals/privacy-fact-sheets/gene…

    • ibuy on 30/03/2019 - 17:50

      I am not sure but will also check this out. Thank you for your help with this.

  • [Deactivated] on 31/03/2019 - 09:48

    Bit of a joke all these people expressing their "opinion" without a clue as to the operation of the law.

    If you don't have a clue, say nothing.

  • Tiredman on 31/03/2019 - 12:50
    +1

    That is a bit odd. I used to work as a teller and we close dozens of accounts everyday and transfer clients money into another account/get cash out. When we close it, there will be a Record of Transaction/receipt. One for the customer to sign (that the bank keeps) and a copy for you to keep.

    Doesn't make sense to me they didn't give you a copy?

    • ibuy on 31/03/2019 - 17:58

      Yes. In every bank except this one I always have received a copy. I don’t know why they were so uptight about giving me a copy.

      When I used to work in a branch at NAB over 28 years ago as an accounts officer we always had a copy for the customer. Same as for ANZ, HSBC and a few others I bank with.

      There is no security risk as claimed. That is a crock. The greater security risk was giving me a card I could put in my wallet with the customer ID used to log into internet banking and a list of account numbers which can have live account numbers written on there. If I lost that then a person would have my login ID plus account numbers!

  • ltvo3 on 31/03/2019 - 19:43

    Can you access your internet banking, normally when you close off an account at the branch, it will be gone immediately in your online account. Alternatively, i remember some banks will send a letter of account closure to customers’ address. maybe wait for it then?

    • ibuy on 31/03/2019 - 21:21

      Normally once the account is closed the internet banking for that account is also closed. The issue is that I have previously closed accounts before and there was a glitch in the bank system and the account was not closed. The bank then kept charging for an open account monthly fees even though closure was requested - then they expected payment and the account was a few hundred overdrawn!! The problem is that when an account is closed it is not immediate. A flag is placed on the account for closure snd then it is processed overnight via batches. A report normally comes up to the branch the next day which lists all closed accounts. A bank officer normally checks these accounts against signed authorities or other documents in case of any fraudulent or other irregular activities. However as the number of account closures is often vast in a large branch it is easy for something like this to be missed. Every so often something like this can happen. Even now with most banks centralizing their processing and reviews and the removal of this task from the branches, problems can still occur. Statements can be sent but they can get lost in the mail or other systems say a statement was sent but it was jammed in the printing machine or other internal bank issue. Unfortunately nothing is foolproof.

  • ibuy on 07/04/2019 - 08:59

    I have managed to find some answers to my question.

    It involved several calls/visits to websites and included the consumer action law center, privacy act - oiac.org, the Victorian Attorney General's department, AFCA, and Banking ombudsman and a lawyer. From these sources the following has been advised for my situation:

    Privacy Act
    - This does not apply to individuals so they have misquoted the law
    - The bank officers however are bound by the privacy act as they are acting as an agent of the bank which is subject to the Privacy Act

    Devices Surveillance Act 1999 (VIC)
    - The law allows individuals to record any conversations, with or without the consent of both parties, so long as one party of the conversation agrees that is fine.
    - Even if they discover that you are recording during the meeting, they cannot stop you from recording
    - However the recording is generally not useable anywhere, it would be just for your reference only. (Possibly under subpoena in a court)
    - If you let them know that you are recording the conversation then the recording can be used anywhere
    - If you record the conversation, with or without their knowledge then they have no right to refuse service (in this particular situation.)

    Documents you sign
    - Under the FOI Act you are entitled to a copy of the document that you sign
    - They cannot refuse to provide me with a copy nor stop me from taking a picture of the document

    Demanding I delete the recording
    - They have no right to demand I delete the recording as the recording is made on my property (phone), not theirs, even if they are a party to the conversation
    - In effect they have violated my property by forcing me to delete the recording.

    Being banned from the bank
    - Under general laws, there is no right for them to ban me from the bank unless an act of terrorism or threat of violence exists. There was no such threat of terrorism or violence in these circumstances so they have no right to do so.

    Being sued
    - They have no right to sue me for the above action (recording the conversation).
    - Neither the bank nor the bank officer personally has the right to sue me for recording the conversation.

    The bank has made many errors in applying the law in this instance, it could be reported to the banking ombudsman as they have broken the law and used it inappropriately to stop me obtaining copies of documents and also deleting the recording of the conversation.

    Summing up,
    - If you need to record a face to face conversation, in Victoria, using your phone or other device, it is not illegal to do so.
    - They cannot stop you from recording the conversation.
    - If they ask you to delete the conversation, you have the right to decline and retain the recording.
    - If you inform them that you are recording the conversation, they have no reason to stop providing the service (in this case, closing the account) to you. If they are following bank procedures and doing the right thing by you they should have nothing to fear. It is often the case that when they do not know their tasks properly then they often do something that is not following regulations/rules.
    - The privacy act does not have any bearing on individuals recording conversations
    - The surveillance devices act for Victoria permits the recording of conversations with or without both parties consent

    So if you need to record a face to face conversation in Victoria you have every right to do so!

    Thank you to those who have posted replies that have assisted in finding answers to the question. It's greatly appreciated.

    I am receiving a call from the bank area manager tomorrow so let's see what he has to say. I will update this for those who are interested after the call.

    • SirFlibbled on 11/04/2019 - 13:56

      Some things to point out.

      FOI Act applies to government documents not private businesses. However, the Privacy Act does allow you access to those documents if there is identifying information on them (ie a signature and your name).

      A bank is allowed to ban you for any reason they like as long as it isn't a breach of another law - ie discrimination. If they don't like that you wear Hawaiian shirts, they can ban you for that reason and there's not much you can do about it.

      • ibuy on 12/04/2019 - 22:35

        Thanks for that. Yes. FOI is government I found out. However this was quoted from legal aid so they also did not realise. Funny how departments like this give advice… In any case the area manager acknowledged that there should have been no issue providing a copy of the document at all.

        I am assuming my lawyer was quoting as you were regarding discrimination. Wearing Hawaiian shirt as a reason for being banned could be discrimination (How many Hawaiians would be offended because it’s their national costume??!!) They need a pretty good reason which is why my lawyer said terrorism or threat.

        However the bank manager acknowledged the untold damage if someone ever said they got banned because they were taking a photo of a document or the bank officer quoting the wrong laws in relation to recording conversations. It would make them look stupid. And the banking ombudsman and ASIC would take them to task. (Given the damage done by banks already after the royal commission finding that banks were even charging dead people for things that were never provided).

  • ibuy on 10/04/2019 - 21:12

    Further update

    The bank manager of the area contacted me.

    Bank has acknowledged that they quoted the wrong act and I do have right of recording. They cannot stop me from recording and even if discovered cannot make me delete or stop recording.

    They also agreed even if they don’t know that they are being recorded it does not matter. If they are doing the right thing then the bank will back them up. It is only if they are saying the wrong thing - in this case many wrong things were said that there should be concern on their part as they have not followed training.

    They also acknowledged that there was no reason why a copy of the document I signed could not be provided or at worst, allowing me to take a photo of the document. The bank officer was wrong to say that I could not take a photo of the document. The manager agreed that the risk of someone doing something with details of a closed account number on the document was small given that the account is closed. So if you need a copy of the document and the bank refuses then you can take a photo or you can request a copy.

    The bank has acknowledged in this case there were serious shortcomings in the customer service and knowledge of the bank staff was poor.

    Hopefully this helps others in future if they need to record a conversation and are in Victoria.

    There is one more account to close tomorrow so lets see how that goes!

    • ibuy on 12/04/2019 - 22:41

      The extra account I had to close yesterday was closed without a fuss and copies of the closure documents that were signed were given to me without a fuss. The area manager has a lot of retaining for his staff to do. He also acknowledged that they made a lot of things up instead of trying to find out the real answer. So they lost credibility and respect and even more damaging was using the wrong laws to justify their actions. Anyway at least I know I am entitled to request and receive copies of documents I sign and record conversations as necessary in Victoria.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join