Requesting a Phone Recording from a Financial Institution

Superkid on 01/03/2023 - 11:49

Hi all and thx in advance for any help.

I am in dispute with my credit card company.

I was provided with information over the phone by an employee of the credit card company, and the company has now reneged on the statements made by their staff member.
I have requested a copy of the phone recordings in order to confirm the specifics of the advice originally given, several times over 3 months, and the credit card company has yet to send it through to me.

What legislation covers requesting calls from financial institutions?

Are there any requirements on the length of time a company would have to deny or fulfil my request?

any general advice?

Thanks all

Financial

Comments

  • Sleeqb7 on 01/03/2023 - 11:51
    +13

    The company records calls, sure, but I don't think they would be obligated to provide them to you.
    You might just be out of luck.

    • iDroid on 01/03/2023 - 14:02
      +1

      I had success in a similar issue - but no real good advice for OP.

      Had an insurance claim agent state that my failed water heater was covered by my insurance (I had a blue ribbon, we cover everything cover). I then went ahead and had work done assuming insurance will pay.

      Upon lodging the claim was told it's not covered.

      I then demanded they check the audio from the conversation - after they checked they accepted the claim.

      So the recording can help in some situations.

      • Settero on 01/03/2023 - 14:07
        +12

        big difference between them having the recording / checking it themselves and providing the recording to you.

    • JimmyF on 01/03/2023 - 14:07
      +2

      but I don't think they would be obligated to provide them to you.

      Correct, I had a dispute with a repair company and said play me the call back of me agreeing to that charge. They are like those records are for our use only and you'll need a court order to access them.

      Long story short, they went off and listened to the recording (without me of course) and magically waived the charge as a 'good will' gesture. Go figure.

      Also aware of companies that record you who hanging up when you say you are recording them back. LOL Really come on, it is only fair.

      • drfuzzy on 03/03/2023 - 12:07

        All major companies will hang up if you record them back.
        They can choose their consumers just as you can choose your service providers.
        It may stink, but that's how it is.

        • JimmyF on 03/03/2023 - 15:51

          All major companies will hang up if you record them back.

          and what irony that is when they do that…. Its funny that its ok for them, but not ok for me to record them.

    • barge-in hunter on 01/03/2023 - 17:09
      +11

      I’m not so sure about that.

      The federal privacy act states every individual has the right to “access and update” personal information - there are even timeframes within which they have to comply.

      The call recording will include you verifying who you are - by name/address/dob (personally identifiable information), so you have the right to access those recordings.

      Email the companys Privacy Officer and request a copy of all your person data, including phone call recordings. Unless there’s some weird exemption for insurance companies, expect a lot back.

      • akyeeeahdude on 01/03/2023 - 21:20
        +4

        Good advice and there's no exception - you have a right to obtain recordings from financial firms (banks, insurers, super funds) in Australia.

      • mattmel96 on 02/03/2023 - 08:15
        -1

        Whilst you do have the right to 'access and update', that right does not infer access to the recordings. It only infers that if you can request they advise what data they have and correct any errors. If you use your thought process, you could demand to be able to walk into their office and log on to their system.

        You can lodge a formal complaint (in writing) requesting same and advising that you plan to escalate the matter to the Financial Ombudsman if unresolved and request they ensure recording is not deleted. If they subsequently do 'lose' the recording, it looks bad for them with FO

        • barge-in hunter on 02/03/2023 - 09:30
          +4

          No offence, but I think you stretched the implication there a bit.

          On the page I linked above, it details the methods in which you shall receive a copy of your personal data/information.

          • mattmel96 on 04/03/2023 - 09:15

            @barge-in hunter: Yeah, so you can request a copy of what personal data (name, dob, address, etc) they have in their system but not a transcript/recording of conversations

    • Herbse on 03/03/2023 - 08:58

      They are obligated to get any information that's been recorded over the phone, in their account notes or any emails regarding the customer infer the freedom of information Act. They need a convincing reason to request the information but the company definitely has to hand it over if asked for.

      A lesson many companies and employees learn the hard way after dealing with an angry/annoying customer and leaving rude notes in their account information which then gets used against them when the information is requested. Which is why I tell employees not to use customer notes for anything that you wouldn't want the customer to see, because they can if they want to.

      • mattmel96 on 04/03/2023 - 09:16

        They can also charge the request or 'reasonable costs' to provide this

  • MS Paint on 01/03/2023 - 11:52
    +24

    They are used for training purposes only.

    So I've been told.

    • Zapwap on 03/03/2023 - 08:54

      I get It's quality and training purposes most of the times.. and I wonder what does 'quality' refers to all the time

    • smartazz104 on 03/03/2023 - 13:55

      But the question, is who are they training exactly…

  • Motek Benzona on 01/03/2023 - 11:59
    +2

    This is why i record all my calls
    Noone can say you lied then

    • Superkid on 01/03/2023 - 12:51
      +7

      yes, im now recording all conversations with the credit card company.

    • El-Rhi on 01/03/2023 - 13:31
      +2

      Do you let them know you are recording?

      • iDroid on 01/03/2023 - 14:03
        +2

        This ..

        Absolutely tell them you're recording the call for training purposes.

        • Nillionaire on 03/03/2023 - 00:39
          +8

          I say "Hey just letting you know I'm also recording this call because I've got a bad memory"

          My memory is actually great but they usually tend to not mind me recording and talk to me nice

      • Motek Benzona on 01/03/2023 - 14:20
        +1

        Under Queenland state law you don't have to let people know you are recording them but can only use the recordings in limited circumstances. Go look it up

        If it's a long term type of relationship I do in an email if it's a lacky at some corporation dumb corporation no because I don't have to in queensland

        Also, despite the federal law you can in fact record calls to protect your legal or personal interests. It does not matter who it is.

        • sam-1966 on 01/03/2023 - 16:31
          +3

          In Qld you don't have to tell them. The important thing is that the person recording the call is part of the conversation.

      • Gareth on 01/03/2023 - 14:47
        +2

        You say that aloud at the same time as their recorded message says it.

        Or just, add "and I am too" .

        None of it will matter - except potentially in a legal sense, as only their machine is listening…

        • Gustave on 01/03/2023 - 15:48
          +2

          1) You aren't being recorded when that message is playing, and 2) you aren't giving the other party the chance to opt out. You might as well whisper it into your shoe for all the legal help you'll get from it.

          • Gareth on 01/03/2023 - 15:57
            +3

            @Gustave: Do they know you're listening when their message plays?

            They only assume so because we are all considered sheep, and merciless to corporate automation.

          • elcap on 03/03/2023 - 08:25
            +1

            @Gustave: Maxwell Smart, is that you?

      • iratepirate on 01/03/2023 - 17:42

        It is not necessary to tell them you are recording if they state they are recording.
        They have implicitly given you permission to record.
        No matter if you are in a one party consent jurisdiction or not.

        What I do for extra cover is when the automated announcement says they are recording I say "So am I" - that way if the recording ever comes up you are on it informing them.

        • CrowReally on 02/03/2023 - 15:35
          +1

          It is not necessary to tell them you are recording if they state they are recording. They have implicitly given you permission to record.

          This sounds like something you've made up (to your own satisfaction) - is there a source on this?

          How can they consent to something they've never been asked?

          • iratepirate on 02/03/2023 - 20:02

            @CrowReally: You have not been asked if you want to be recorded either - you have been informed, if you continue on with the conversation it is implicit that you have given consent to be recorded. The other party is also aware that the call "may be recorded" - i.e. both parties have implicitly given consent for the conversation to be recorded.

            • CrowReally on 03/03/2023 - 00:53

              @iratepirate: A and B are on the phone. A wants to record, says to B that A intends to start recording the conversation.

              B has the option to discontinue the conversation if they do not want to be recorded or alternately stays on the line, giving implicit consent to A to make a recording.

              A has now fulfilled the legal requirements that will let A use A's recording device.

              Where in any of that has B indicated to A that B intends to record the conversation? When did A get the right to opt out?

              "Look, if one recording's being made you get to make one as well" is something you've made up in your head. But don't take my word for it:

              Have a read of section 7(1)(b) and then (3)(a) : https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/whole/html/inforce/curre… - B would be the person who is secretly using a listening device without obtaining consent from all parties. Flat out illegal.

              • dave999 on 03/03/2023 - 09:03
                +1

                @CrowReally: But Section (3)(b) which is an 'or' to (3)(a) could certainly make it legal.

                "(b) a principal party to the conversation consents to the listening device being so used and the recording of the conversation—
                (i) is reasonably necessary for the protection of the lawful interests of that principal party, or
                (ii) is not made for the purpose of communicating or publishing the conversation, or a report of the conversation, to persons who are not parties to the conversation."

                Reading it all together, it is not illegal if "a principal party to the conversation consents to the listening device being so used and the recording of the conversation" "is reasonably necessary for the protection of the lawful interests of that principal party" - the principal party being the op.

                It certainly isn't clear cut it is illegal. It ultimately is only illegal if a judge has set a precedent in court that it is illegal.

                • CrowReally on 03/03/2023 - 09:16

                  @dave999: Sure, if you want to go to court and argue that every time you've phoned up a service that legally obtained their recording of the call it was "reasonably necessary to protect your lawful interests" that you secretly made a recording as well, I won't stop you.

                  The judge will, because "just in case I might need to listen back to this one day" isn't going to cut the mustard, and it's not a blanket assumption that applies to let you record any and all conversations. It's a test that's applied every time.

                  Now you're the person standing there telling them the 'Tech support with Optus because the router stopped working' call was, in your reasonable view, a potential future legal minefield, and you decided in the circumstances you needed legal safeguards in place and THAT's why the recording wasn't illegal.

                  Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

                  • Motek Benzona on 03/03/2023 - 10:09

                    @CrowReally: Thats really not how it works in court at all..at the worst you might not have the evidence admitted if all you are doing is recording people to protect yourself.

                    • CrowReally on 03/03/2023 - 10:53

                      @Motek Benzona: Keep in mind this isn't a discussion about how one would be able to bring evidence to court. It's a discussion about whether the recordings in the first place would be legal. We're discussing court now because 'it might be legal if' has reached the stage where people are relying on substantiation of whether something you've done is reasonable or not, which would have to be something a court decides. But that's not part of the original discussion.

                      Someone said "As long as they say they're recording you, you're allowed to make your own recordings because they've implicitly given you permission".

                      That's what I'm skeptical of. It has saying-to-the-bank-teller "if you're charging me a transaction fee then I can charge you a transaction fee" energy, which is not how things work.

                      • Motek Benzona on 03/03/2023 - 11:36
                        +1

                        @CrowReally: I do not agree with the mutual consent thing that was posted. Its not correct however the scope of "protecting your own interests" is so non specific and vast i dont think you would be jailed or fined for recording everyday conversations such as banks and the like.

                        Given how much these corporations lie i would say the very definition of protection is often needed with these entities.

                        • CrowReally on 03/03/2023 - 11:52
                          +1

                          @Motek Benzona: I agree with the point that you're making, but I think it's incorrect for someone to take the 3b "it's okay to protect your interests" specific exclusion and generalise it to the "well who's to say when something might become legal and it can't hurt to have a copy" mindset.

                          If that argument was upheld, all secret recordings would be valid and the law wouldn't operate.

                          Practically I don't see any penalties or gaol for the actions in this thread, but that's not the same thing as "this is fine, you're allowed to do this according to my Dunning-Kruger law degree".

                  • dave999 on 13/03/2023 - 11:35

                    @CrowReally: But in this case the OP is definitely ringing to protect his legal interest - I never said you could just record any conversation.

                    There are plenty of legal precedents set by judges that have let secretly recorded conversation be admissible as evidence in proceedings under the carve out of "protecting your lawful interest". The law is clear you can't record conversations UNLESS it is in your lawful interest, in which case you most certainly can.

              • iratepirate on 04/03/2023 - 08:49
                -1

                @CrowReally: No one is secretly using a listening device - all parties to the conversation are aware that the call "may be recorded" What Bar Association do you belong to or are you a fellow graduate of Dunning-Kruger?

                • CrowReally on 04/03/2023 - 13:40

                  @iratepirate: Alright, I thought the distinction between A and B would have landed for you but maybe if I copy and paste the actual legislation but drop "B" as a specific example in place of the general words of "A person", might illustrate how B hasn't obeyed the law? You basically just have to do some reading. I know, I know, but you can do some colouring in later.

                  7 Prohibition on installation, use and maintenance of listening devices
                  (1) B must not knowingly install, use or cause to be used or maintain a listening device—
                  (b) to record a private conversation to which B is a party.
                  (3) Subsection (1)(b) does not apply to the use of a listening device by B to a private conversation if—
                  (a) all of the principal parties to the conversation consent, expressly or impliedly, to the listening device being so used.

                  "The listening device" in 3(a) is the one that B is operating, the one that's declared to be illegal in 7(1)(b).

                  B is breaking the law using a recording device [that's the 7(1)(b) part right there]. B is in a lot of trouble unless they can use an exception to the law.

                  B can only rely on 3(a) if the other people on the phone call consent to the use to 'the listening device'. (Not 'a listening device' or 'every and all listening devices'.. 'THE listening device', the only that's that's been discussed the entire time).

                  But B hasn't announced its existence, so they can't obtain consent (implied or otherwise). B is stuck in 7(1)(b) territory, with their secret recording device, and that's an illegal, son.

                  I'd say do not pass Go, do not collect $200 but I think that's a cut above your playlevel right now. But enjoy the colouring in, yeah :)

                  • iratepirate on 04/03/2023 - 18:38

                    @CrowReally: Subsection (1)(b) does not apply to the use of a listening device by B to a private conversation if—
                    (a) all of the principal parties to the conversation consent, expressly or IMPLIEDLY , to the listening device being so used.

                    Whilst party B may not have EXPRESSLY been informed that party A is recording, they surely know that an announcement has been made that the conversation "may be recorded" - it is their companies announcement after all, and they have therefore implied that they consent to being recorded.

                    No court in the land would convict you of an offense in such a circumstance.
                    Putting my crayons away now…

                    • CrowReally on 04/03/2023 - 20:19

                      @iratepirate: Your problem is you don't understand that this test is on person by person basis. Let's say A is the phone jockey at the telemarketing company who plays the "this message is being recorded" message and B is the (silent) customer who starts recording at the same time.

                      An event happens and both A and B are now in court with their recordings tendered in evidence.

                      Judge: Having a recording means you are both in trouble, A and B. Unless you have a reason why I shouldn't bring the hammer down on you..?
                      A: Wait, I played a message saying "this message may be recorded", I made B aware of my company's intention to record, by staying on the line they gave me implicit consent!
                      Judge: Yes, that is exactly what the law says. Alright, you're off the hook. But B, you're in a lot of trouble.
                      B: Not so fast, judgey pants! When THEY told ME that they may be recording the call, that means they're aware the call could be recorded by themselves, and I guess that somehow means they're now aware that means I could record the call as well! That's exactly what that means! And that's how they consented to me making a recording, that I never told them about!
                      Judge: Is.. wait .. is that crayon on your teeth?
                      B: I'm pleading the Fifth on that one.

                      The saddest part of this all is that you know, deep down, that you're wrong. If you genuinely felt that the interpretation you had in your head was correct, you wouldn't add something asinine on (as you originally did) about "oh and sometimes I say "so am I" during the recording for extra protection". Staying silent is either right or wrong, you don't need "extra protection" if you're in the right.

                      And yet, "Oh, I'm totally covered by 7(3)(a) if I stay silent… but then I go and say the phrase that would explicitly make 7(3)(a) apply as, uh, 'extra protection'. Look at me, I'm making it apply twice, that's how right I am".

                      Sad.

                      • dave999 on 13/03/2023 - 11:43

                        @CrowReally: All your words are completely meaningless unless you can give an actual judgement where a judge has set that precedent.

                        Everything you say should be noted with "in my personal opinion but actually I have no idea".

                        • CrowReally on 13/03/2023 - 12:02

                          @dave999: I guess I'm just the sort of person who relies on the wording on the legislation, who was responding to a "in my head I reckon but I have no basis for why" view.

                          Swing and a miss, buddy.

                          If you want to hear it from the judge's mouth however, Thomas V Nash [2010] is a thorough squashing of the "just in case" use of a recording to protect "lawful interests".
                          https://jade.io/article/148249 (paraphaphs 44-50, basically). "You weren't actively in litigation at the time, and the fact you might have wanted to rely on it for a future civil case is not enough to pass the test".

                          • dave999 on 16/03/2023 - 20:01

                            @CrowReally: Wow, you have found a case where the recording was deemed illegal. Whilst looking for it I find it hard to believe you didn't come across a whole lot of cases that were actually deemed legal. You are being pretty disingenuous here, buddy.

                            See https://nswcourts.com.au/articles/are-recordings-of-private-… which notes a couple of cases where secretly recorded conversations were ruled legal and admissible. It seems 'just in case' is not protecting a legal interest but in these cases where a dispute has already started which is likely to result in legal action it was deemed a legal interest.

                            As for "I guess I'm just the sort of person who relies on the wording on the legislation", that is simply not how laws and courts work.

                            • CrowReally on 17/03/2023 - 08:36

                              @dave999: For someone who couldn't wait to hear it from the judge's mouth you seem pretty disinterested in what the judge has to say, I have to note.

                              Still, I'm sure it's a good workout moving the goalposts like that.

                              I'm not sure how I feel about someone ignoring both the legislation and a court judgement to tell me something is "simply not how laws and courts work". It sounds like something an ignorant person would say, and I don't think you're that stupid.

                              Now tuck your shirt in and off to school with you, you cheeky little rapscallion.

                              • dave999 on 17/03/2023 - 12:38

                                @CrowReally: I just gave you a couple of judgements that allowed secretly recorded audio as legally admissible evidence. Just admit you are wrong.

                                As for "I'm not sure how I feel about someone ignoring both the legislation and a court judgement to tell me something is "simply not how laws and courts work". It sounds like something an ignorant person would say, and I don't think you're that stupid." it is you who has literally no idea how the legal system works. Legislation is set, judges interpret the legislation and make precedents, rulings are made on the precedents. It is irrelevant how you personally interpret the language of the legislation, it only matters how judges do.

                                Also, I didn't ignore a judgement, I gave you a couple of judgements that proved you wrong. The judgment you gave it was not in the legal interest to record the conversation (in that case it was just fishing for information) but there are plenty of cases when it was judged to be in the person's legal interest.

      • Zapwap on 03/03/2023 - 09:07

        You should let them know, yes, but, the call is all about your account, your personal info is being collected and matters being discussednot the phone agent's. So I guess if you forget to let them know sometimes, it's okay

    • ChatCPT on 03/03/2023 - 09:35

      what do you use?

      any ios recommendations?

      • Motek Benzona on 03/03/2023 - 10:13
        +1

        Apparently cal recording on IOS is hard ;-(

        Android made it diffictult for a couple of years with the feature virtually being wiped due to privacy permissions but now you seem to be able to record again.

        I use this https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.appstar.ca… for anyone with andriod. It has worked on S21 22 and 23 with default settings perfectly

        • SpicyStew on 03/03/2023 - 12:21

          android call recording will automatically say "this call is being recorded" before recording, just swipe right on the call screen. At least on moto phones

          • Motek Benzona on 03/03/2023 - 14:12

            @SpicyStew: Only with the inbuilt recorder android has, that is pretty much disabled on all aussie phones as far as i know. I have not ever seen it. Chinese phones seem to have the ferature.

            • SpicyStew on 03/03/2023 - 19:47
              +1

              @Motek Benzona: i get officeworks moto phones, call recording function has never been disabled

  • Hybroid on 01/03/2023 - 12:01
    +4

    They are not obliged to provide you with their recordings whatsoever.

    You can always record your own calls (and have to let them know you're recording).

    • FoxJump on 01/03/2023 - 12:04
      +1

      Yep. I'm happy my asus zenfone comes with built-in call recording abilities.

      • xdigger on 01/03/2023 - 13:03

        Is this the latest Android OS? I thought they disabled it

        • FoxJump on 01/03/2023 - 13:32

          Yep A13 on zenfone 8 has call recording built in

      • BewareOfThe Dog on 01/03/2023 - 13:04
        +1

        Cube ACR is an App for anyone that needs one

        • xdigger on 01/03/2023 - 13:41

          Thanks mate

    • DrSwag on 01/03/2023 - 13:10

      Is this a law that you must let others know you are recording them? Be in individual-to-individual or individual-to-corporation ?

      • CrowReally on 01/03/2023 - 13:22
        +1

        Yes, though rules vary from state to state.

    • timthetoolman on 01/03/2023 - 13:28

      Would you have to let them know though?
      If they say at the start it's being recorded for training purposes, then it's fairly assumed that the people on the call are already aware it's being recorder?

  • Donaldhump on 01/03/2023 - 12:01
    +3

    lawyer / financial ombudsmen, letter stating issue, court action, subpoena, settlement

  • 2jzzzz on 01/03/2023 - 12:04
    +3

    I either record my important phone calls, request the agent send through an email outlining everything they agreed to or do everything over chat and have a transcript.

    • Chandler on 01/03/2023 - 13:10
      +1

      This is the way - online chat, with a transcript: if they don't do one (or your doubtful they do), copy the chat history before you finish. If on the phone at the very least take reasonably detailed notes. The template I use goes along the lines of:

      • Date Time
      • Company Name
      • Phone Number (including options used, i.e. the old "Press 1 for …")
      • Person's Name
      • General details of conversation (both sides)
  • Drakesy on 01/03/2023 - 12:08

    Ok i'll bite
    So what was this information and what did it elude to.

    • Superkid on 01/03/2023 - 12:51
      +1

      My credit card was used fraudulently by someone overseas (no idea who, they brought items from South America and shipped it to the UK).

      I spoke to the credit card company as soon as I knew (an hour after the transaction), they advised I would get my money back and not to worry.
      I asked if I should call the company who sold the items to inform them not to ship it as it was a fraudulent purchase. The guy I spoke to said no as they would handle it.

      The credit card company are now saying they wont cover the fraudulent use of my card.

      • trapper on 01/03/2023 - 13:21
        +5

        The credit card company are now saying they wont cover the fraudulent use of my card.

        What is their reason?

      • FoxJump on 01/03/2023 - 13:36
        +5

        The advices are independent.

        yes the CC will cover fraudalent use after their investigation is complete.

        initially, he said blah as the investigation has not begun.
        now the investigation has ended and they say no.

        your fight should be with why the investigation resulted in not covering the usage.

        calling the retailer and asking them to not ship is something irrelevant.

      • boomramada on 01/03/2023 - 15:34
        +2

        This happen to me 3 times (x2 CBA, and x1 28D) , each time credit card companies refund the money, I didn't need to do anything.

        why they won't handle it? I don't think getting a phone record will fix this issue, seems like there is more to the story.

        Instead of wasting your time on getting the phone conversation, try contacting AFCA

      • gromit on 02/03/2023 - 23:56
        +1

        Something critical is missing from this story. I.e what is the reason they stated you arent covered. Notifying the retailer is irrelevant as that is there job. Usually if they are refusing it means they think u somehow contributed to the incident, ie shared card details, fell for a scam etc

      • Nillionaire on 03/03/2023 - 00:42
        +2

        Very strange. I've never had a CC company refuse to cover a genuine fraudulent use.

        • Lichen6420 on 03/03/2023 - 07:52
          +2

          Perhaps there is more to the story.

          It would be good to have some context around why they are refusing to cover the fraudulent use of the card.

          • ChatCPT on 03/03/2023 - 09:38

            @Lichen6420: there always is

            no aussie cc company would flat out refuse to repay fraud charges unless OP has more to share

      • Lichen6420 on 03/03/2023 - 07:35
        +2

        What you need to do is lodge a formal complaint with the bank, await their response.

        If you are not happy with their response than you lodge a complaint with the AFCA (Australian Financial Complaints Authority), they will investigate your complaint and make a binding determination on the outcome.

        Ultimately the bank is bound by either the VISA or MASTERCARD scheme rules when resolving complaints regarding credit cards, have a read of below.
        https://www.afca.org.au/about-afca/publications/factsheet-ch…

        What you will find is the bank will normally offer a 'goodwill' payment for the disputed amount to resolve and close out the complaint, whilst not accepting liability. The AFCA process costs the bank money, and this cost increases the more the process drags on.

        An example of the response to a complaint I made is below. This was related to a travel agent who took money for a booking during COVID and refused to refund upon the trip being cancelled by the operator.

        My Investigation

        I have now completed my investigation about the outcome of cancelled xxxxxx booked with xxxxxx Pty Ltd.

        Based on my findings, the purchase was made on 21 February, 2020 using your CBA issued Mastercard ending in xxxx.

        Unfortunately, there have been no changes to MasterCard, Visa and EFTPOS scheme rules, which state that customers should first try and resolve a dispute with the merchant. In saying this, I acknowledge that you have been trying to do so without success.

        Mr xxxxx, I am empathetic of your circumstances as to the ongoing effort, time and energy you have invested to resolve your dispute.

        While the banks’ position remains unchanged, I am pleased to offer you a one-off goodwill payment of $2,798.00 on compassionate grounds. This represents the payment of $2,798.00 for your xxxxxx that was cancelled.

  • lostgoat on 01/03/2023 - 12:10
    +4

    I have a good summary . It a bit like trying to get the dash cam footage of the the other person in an accident when they were responsible.

  • oscargamer on 01/03/2023 - 12:29
    +1

    Can you get it through FOI?

    • happydude on 01/03/2023 - 15:24

      No as they are not a government agency.

  • djsweet on 01/03/2023 - 12:32
    +1

    Just keep nagging. Its your only real option besides court action.

  • KaTst3R on 01/03/2023 - 12:49

    You can try getting a subpoena.

  • tio on 01/03/2023 - 13:13
    +1

    If you really want to push it, AFCA can compels financial institutions to hand over things like that.

  • trapper on 01/03/2023 - 13:25
    +17

    Your focusing on the wrong thing here anyway.

    The dispute is that your card was used fraudulently and they aren't covering it.

    How will getting your hands on this phone recording recover your money?

  • John Kimble on 01/03/2023 - 14:25
    +1

    Yep, don't worry about the recording and just escalate to AFCA as others have already suggested.

  • apple2016 on 01/03/2023 - 15:32

    Similar thing happened with Origin energy. was told on a phone conversation discounts continue for 24 months but it stopped in 12 months.
    Lodged a complaint with the ombudsman, this forced Origin to honor the discounts as per the telephone conversation.

  • nedski on 01/03/2023 - 16:29
    +2

    I support making the complaint to AFCA. They have the ability to request call recordings. I know this firsthand as I used to work in a regulatory role.

  • GordonD on 01/03/2023 - 21:07

    I always deal with companies in writing. I no longer communicate with employees of companies over the phone when money or similar matters are involved. They complain. But I have a reason.

    It is because I made the mistake of doing so some years ago with a bank. Then acting on what I was told. Only to have them subsequently deny that any of their employees would or did tell me that.

    Here's how much it cost me.

    $286,000.

    Which bank? Yes.

    • trapper on 02/03/2023 - 12:51
      +1

      So what happened?

      • I like freestuff on 03/03/2023 - 08:52

        Also wondering what happened. Would have thought the bank also operates on that principle as well, nothing is promised until it is in writing. Wouldn’t act on anything until it was.

  • Thrifty1 on 02/03/2023 - 10:13

    If not the actual recording, you should be able to get a transcript of the call

  • OzBargainGirl on 02/03/2023 - 10:22
    -1
    1. Was the financial institution in Australia or overseas?
    2. If AU, contact privacy officer for that institution, state Privacy Act 1988, and the fact that the institution records all telephone calls
    3. Provide details of telephone call - name of person, your name, date, time, location (where the staff member was when they answered the phone) - that's why recording details is always important when communicating with someone. This is to help them locate information.
    4. Seek transcript of the telephone call/advice, as they had implied consent from you to record the telephone call
    5. Write to them that you are not interested in the actual name of the person - just details of the conversation.
    6. Read what GordonD has written. Repeat. Read what GordonD has written.
    7. Make sure that you write in the e-mail that if they do not respond within thirty (30) calendar days, Privacy Act 1988 consider this to be a reasonable time frame for response. Also write that if there is no response, that you will be contacting Privacy Ombudsman. And then contact Privacy Ombudsman about a week later, to ensure that they will respond. Privacy Ombudsman = OAIC.
    8. Do not have your matter transferred to AFCA. They are useless. Follow Privacy Act, as it is a dispute between 'he said, she said', and access to transcript of your information. RESIST from having your matter transferred to AFCA at all costs, and insist that Privacy Ombudsman deals with it. They will do everything possible to try and offload to AFCA. You may be asked to present WHY your case should not be transferred to AFCA. First do to Privacy Ombudsman, because they can slap them with fines.
  • TightAl on 03/03/2023 - 00:39

    Make a complaint, managers will re-listen to the call.

  • living4music on 03/03/2023 - 01:45

    Anyone know what is the easiest method of recording the conversation on iPhone? Don’t say I need to talk on speaker and have another device record it. Just not practical. Thanks.

  • Batapotamus on 03/03/2023 - 07:31

    Can I request Centelink recorded calls? I know they're a kind of financial institution but theyve cut my Disability Support Pension off completely with a $9500 debt to boot and i want access to the original recordings saying im actually legible.

    This is probably a new thread in itself!

    • niffy on 03/03/2023 - 09:36
      +1

      Do it within 21 days of them cutting you off by asking for it under FOI, you have 21 days to request review of a decision. After the 21 days pass of the outcome letter you can’t dispute old missed payments and have to lodge a new claim for that day when u submit it

      • Batapotamus on 06/03/2023 - 08:58

        Thank you so much. I thought there was no real time limit as long as you set up some sort of payment method but best be getting onto it. I guess you mean ring Centrelink and request the calls?…no other body?

  • PixelPaul on 03/03/2023 - 07:31

    a lot of people here saying they record calls… How? on an iPhone? Any way to automatically do it for every incoming and outgoing call?

    • momo1988 on 03/03/2023 - 12:19

      I'm very curious about this myself as when I've had to do it previously I've used my laptop to record.

    • SpicyStew on 03/03/2023 - 19:53

      android stock has call recording by default. some phone manufactures disable the function tho.
      i've got officeworks moto android phones from officeworks, they've all had call recording function turned on.
      Just swipe right from the call screen.

      i doubt iphone can do it easily… iphones are more restricted…

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join