Recording In Secret

[Scarlett]

I have an Atos interview (at home) this week. Last time I had one, they wrote that I could stand up for half an hour, walk 500m etc, all things that I haven't been able to do in years. They stopped my benefits and I appealed, and won. I had to jump through hoops and get a zillion letters from GPs and specialists to take to court to try and show that their assessment was not just inaccurate, but was completely made up, compared with what I was telling them. I want to record my interview with them, so that I have clear proof of me telling them my capabilities. Then, if they change what I have told them, I have proof of this too. (After all, how can someone I have just met possibly know how I cope on a daily basis?). Is this illegal, and would I therefore have to ask their permission to record my interview?

[woofgang]

You have to tell them that they will be recorded and for what purpose(s). You have to keep the recording securely, only use it for the purpose(s) that you told them about and destroy it when its no longer needed/usable for the stated purpose(s) They don't have to give permission exactly but can refuse to do the interview, although i would be fascinated to know the reason for the refusal.

[rojash]

I'm pretty sur that in the UK, recording a conversation is legal as long as at least ONE party to the conversation is aware of it. So, yes, it will be legal.

But, you might be better off simply telling them that you are recording, and explaining why. That way you go some way to ensuring that they report it accurately without the need for using the recording later in evidence. (I appreciate that you want to catch them cheating and demonstrate it, but being pragmatic about it, you will be better off if you simply ensure that they don't cheat.)

[murraymints]

you have to do it openly and with agreement..

[murraymints]

you should have witness there in any case..preferably not family...

[woofgang]

rojash, its legal to do the recording covertly, but the problem arises when you want to use the recording or disclose it to a third party. I would be telling the interviewer and saying its so that you have a record of the interview so that errors or omissions can be corrected at a later date.

[stewey]

I believe that rojash's first paragraph is correct; however, I would not inform them.

[woofgang]

stewey, of course one party would be aware, they are the ones who decided to record it!! AS I have said, the issue arises if you then want to use the conversation to prove error or deliberate behaviour.

[murraymints]

as one who used to do home visits..I assure you if you want to record anything that you intend to produce as evidence of any kind..you MUST..tell them and they have then the right to ask for copy of such recording instantly..ie before they leave premises...

[NOX]

You don't have to tell the ' other side' you are recording them so just do it, if there are issues regarding their visit this time you can always use it as a big stick against them. My son recorded someone he was having a legal dispute with and it made the situation a whole lot easier.
I'd have a camcorder rigged up personally as well, makes people ever so much more careful about what they try to do.

[NOX]

You do know that you can photograph, video and record anyone anywhere ( either public place or your own private property) without their consent don't you Murray? The fact it's a ' home visit' is neither here nor there, or do you think they ask everyone before the cctv them?

[naomi24]

//I assure you if you want to record anything that you intend to produce as evidence of any kind..you MUST..tell them //

How does that work? People like Sarah Ferguson have been caught out by secret recordings.

[woofgang]

so murray, do they have to give the interviewee a copy of any notes that they made at the interview before they leave the premises? I ask because I used to do information gathering interviews as part of the disciplinary process in the NHS. I used to agree at the beginning of the meeting that at the end of the meeting, we would together agree on the notes from the meeting and they would be given copies of those notes then and there. All parties would sign the notes to say that they agreed with them as a true record. It saved a lot of trouble later on in the process.

[murraymints]

I reiterate my previous post and add I worked for government dept similar to atos and have practical working experience of this scenario...

[woofgang]

naomi you can make arguments to allow use such as it is in the public interest to publish,
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120210234428AAyYvtY

[murraymints]

notes no..recorded material yes..as this can be manipulated....notes can be disputed by either side...recordings are meant to be real time true verbatim..but can be electronically tampered with...

[NOX]

I reiterate my previous post too Murray, this is 100% legal- our solicitor in fact suggested it.

[woofgang]

NOX, its not the act of recording that is the issue here (IMO) its being able to use the recording at a later date and also focussing the mind of the interviewer...its like painting speed cameras yellow...the deterrent factor.

[murraymints]

s Ferguson....not for go vernment dept. official interview....whatever media does is for own purpose not officoal submission for legal gov. dept.

[murraymints]

yes..woof my point..

[NOX]

Woofgang:-I was actually addressing what Murray suggested that you have to inform, give a copy etc- which is simply inaccurate. In the situation we had- the court accepted a transcript of the recording as evidence and it was game over for the opposition. Anyone knows that if a recording is tampered with an expert can tell, so the opposition accepted the transcript as a true and accurate account of what was said because to do otherwise would have been pointless and would have simply cost them more in costs when they were found against.
For this purpose I would take a similar view to be honest.the fact our solicitor suggested covert recording and didn't find it unusual makes the point that it is 100% legal.