Recorded Calls - Your Thoughts?

[blitzen]

Hi,

I noticed that more and more businesses are recording phone calls, probably to protect themselves, maybe to prevent cussing. Just about every company that I phone as a regular consumer does this.

We just had a customer claim that someone at my company told him that if he ordered something on 12/7 that he should get it for Xmas - even though the website said deadline was 12/3 in bright bold colors.

I don't believe anyone at my company said what the customer claimed. My receptionists are trained to abide by exactly what is on the website and to call me for exceptions or clarifications. I, myself, experienced customers misinterpreting (lieing?) about what was said in conversations.

This verbal misinterpretation by the customer doesn't happen often. We're striving for great customer service, including being realistic about expectations, so the few times it happens concerns me.

If the customers who phones gets a message something like "this call may be recorded for quality reasons...", then the customer may not be so bold as to make up things. We really don't have to record it, just say that it "may" be recorded.

I'd rather not implement this message for the few bothersome customers, and I don't know if it'd turn away customers.

MY QUESTION
What are your thoughts on this? Do you think saying that the phone call may be recorded would turn away customers when they call to place an order or to just make a simple inquiry?

If so, what percentage do you think would go elsewhere?

[theengel]

That probably depends on your market. I don't think you HAVE to tell customers if you are recording a phone conversation. I record all of mine, and only mention it when there's a reason to.

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by theengel

That probably depends on your market. I don't think you HAVE to tell customers if you are recording a phone conversation.

IANAL, but that would depend on what state you are in. Here's more on state to state laws.

In any case, it never bothers me at all when retail or service companies say, this call may be recorded to improve customer service, or something like that. On the contrary, it improves my impression of the company. It makes me think they care, and I know that if I don't like the customer service I get, there may be a record of what was said.

Cheers, MJ

[wige]

I used to work in a call centers, one where I did tech support (and the calls were recorded) and another where I did spot-checking (listening to the recorded calls to determine statistical information, trying to trace a problem with a product through call histories). When I did tech support, one of the products we supported was a fax machine that supported two-way call recording. When we took calls on that product, we were required to remind customers that use of that feature was illegal in all but two states unless they used a very specific script before and after initiating the recording.

I think the recording of calls is becoming commonplace, especially if you have a call center/phone bank. Even having someone listening in on the line (trainees for example, or advanced techs) could require the use of a disclaimer about calls being recorded or monitored. Customers do seem to expect this, and in many cases would not disconnect as a result.

Free tip on call centers by the way: when you are on hold with a call center, everything you say while on hold is typically recorded/monitored. When I worked in the tech support job, I would sometimes get messages from the manager who monitored calls giving me information that the customer said during the hold music ("Yeah, I think I am going to get the exchange for the phone I dropped in the pool!" <pause> "Sorry about the delay, sir. I just needed to remotely log into your phone base unit. The error message indicates your phone is waterlogged. Did you drop it in a large body of water?")

[mjtaylor]

Originally Posted by wige

Free tip on call centers by the way: when you are on hold with a call center, everything you say while on hold is typically recorded/monitored. When I worked in the tech support job, I would sometimes get messages from the manager who monitored calls giving me information that the customer said during the hold music ("Yeah, I think I am going to get the exchange for the phone I dropped in the pool!" <pause> "Sorry about the delay, sir. I just needed to remotely log into your phone base unit. The error message indicates your phone is waterlogged. Did you drop it in a large body of water?")

Very funny ... so you are funny *and* smart!

[theengel]

Originally Posted by wige

Free tip on call centers by the way: when you are on hold with a call center, everything you say while on hold is typically recorded/monitored. When I worked in the tech support job, I would sometimes get messages from the manager who monitored calls giving me information that the customer said during the hold music ("Yeah, I think I am going to get the exchange for the phone I dropped in the pool!" <pause> "Sorry about the delay, sir. I just needed to remotely log into your phone base unit. The error message indicates your phone is waterlogged. Did you drop it in a large body of water?")

That's awesome!

[wige]

Oh the stories I could tell... need a good sense of humor when you work in tech support

Oooh, that gives me an idea for a breakroom thread...

[suesheboy]

Interesting note: My lawyer told me that when they notify you that they are recording you, you can record them without asking for permission since they have implied consent for recording as they know about their outbound message stating the conversation is recorded.

[DrTandem1]

In just about every state in the US it is not only illegal to record conversations, but to allow others to monitor conversations without the knowledge and consent of all parties involved. That being said, the reason they monitor calls are usually for customer service improvement. Also, if an employee knows that their call may be monitored, they are more likely to provide you better service. This fact is announced prior to the conversation to cover the legal requirements.

[cw1865]

I've actually had significant experience with recorded calls being used as evidence. All of these matters settled so ultimately the question of admissability was never addressed by the court. Irrespective of whether the recording would be considered admissable or inadmissable, prior to trial, if I feel that the contents of a recording would support my client's case, you can be sure that my adversary would be getting a copy (I would leave it to him or her to object to the admissability through a motion in limine).

That being said, I can certainely advise that if you do inform customers that their calls can be monitored for 'quality assurance purposes' (or any other purpose for that matter), you better be recording the calls. If you're not, its going to seriously damage your credibility when requests for the recordings are made through discovery and you're unable to produce them. If you can't produce the recordings and the judge thinks you're hiding evidence or have destroyed evidence, you could be subject to sanctions.

Currently the best practice is to inform all parties to the conversation that their calls are being recorded.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by theengel

That probably depends on your market. I don't think you HAVE to tell customers if you are recording a phone conversation. I record all of mine, and only mention it when there's a reason to.

There's a very good chance, then, that you are violating the laws of 1 or more States.

Pennsylvania, for example, requires both prior notification and the consent of the other party if they are in PA.

PA is not alone in this regard; it was a matter of great legal import in the Clinton-Lewinsky affair.

So, if I, a resident of PA, tell any party that that they may not record, they are required by law to comply; and, if the issue is never raised, they still may not record.

__________________________________________________ ____

[DrTandem1]

Regarding discovery, the announcement says "may" be recorded/monitored, not that they all are. Therefore, it is highly likely that we are talking about sampling. As for an actual recording, documentation of the call and its contents is also admissible. It is fairly impossible to prove that something does not exist. If the evidence is not available to the defense, it cannot be used by the claimant. So, discovery of such evidence is moot.

[cw1865]

Well, that's a good point, note how when you change and tweak the facts ever so slightly, ie. from 'will record' to 'may be recorded' it changes how you feel about a person who doesn't have the recording. In the former, you think that the person doesn't want to bring the tape forward, in the latter you believe in the possibility that indeed the recording doesn't exist. Nevertheless, there are definitely times when failure to possess certain evidence can seriously undermine your credibility. Facts finders, judges in bench trials, juries in jury trials, can make reasonable inferences. So, if they think that you're full of it you're in trouble.

In one of the cases that I had, my client rented cars to the public. Defendant rented the car. It was a Hummer and the 'kids' rent it to try to impress women into thinking they have money. Car went out and somehow winds up in a police chase resulting in the Hummer being impaled on a tree. Fortunately nobody was hurt, but somehow the people in the Hummer actually ran away and eluded the police. The police of course look at the license plate and contact my client who of course traces the car to the Defendant's rental contract (a photocopy of the license is kept too). My client knew exactly what was coming next (a report that the Hummer had been stolen). Lo and behold come morning, the phone call comes in that the vehicle has been stolen. My client had one of those phones with a micro-casette in it and he turned it on. At no point did he mention that he was recording the conversation. During the recording, my client asked if the Defendant had the keys to the car. The answer was YES. Well, unfortunately for the Defendant, the keys were in the car when my client sent the tow truck to get the car out of the police impound lot.

My client has insurance of course, but with a high deductible, so he brought the suit against the Defendant, who somehow managed not to get charged by the police. On response to the initial interrogatories, the Defendant's story was that he parked the car at night, but the key wouldn't come out of the ignition so he put a towel over the steering column so that people wouldn't see the keys in the ignition and take the car, of course to no avail. By this point, he obviously had time to reflect and needed to explain why the car still had the keys in the ignition. I hadn't turned over the casette yet (on purpose of course), only turning over damage estimates, etc. I supplemented my intial response to the Defendant's discovery requests and sent a copy of the casette over. My adversary called me up and hemmed and hawed about it and I said that he would have to file a motion to preclude it and that notwithstanding my client would still testify as to the conversation irrespective of the admissability of the recording. Even though the recording isn't completely dispositive, the recording, I think, made the difference in forcing a settlement well before depositions because the other side saw that their case started to reek.

[ronchalice]

There is some very good advice here. Two more tidbits that might be useful. In addition to state laws, there are a number of Federal wiretapping statutes that could come into play if you don't notify your callers about recording. At least they don't require the beep every fifteen seconds anymore (in most states anyway). Another word of caution about saying you "do" record or you "may" record, and you don't really record anything. You might have a challenge when you respond to a subpoena for ALL you recordings, so the opposing litigators can say "we need evidence on how many calls are being recorded and why, so we can determine if our client is being discriminated against."

remember... just thoughts from practical experience. ianafl.

[bobchrist]

I think you can record calls of the customers especially one who is really bad one rather than all clients, those give you often ultimatum to put you in trouble as you may need proof if they mess up and maybe going to put you in trouble.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by bobchrist

I think you can record calls of the customers especially one who is really bad one rather than all clients, those give you often ultimatum to put you in trouble as you may need proof if they mess up and maybe going to put you in trouble.

Well, you are certainly entitled to hold your own opinion.

However, the Law will disregard such, and hold you accountable for your actions which breach it.

[kevsta]

many years ago I worked at an IT recruitment firm, a multi million Plc in the Uk who routinely recorded every conversation every employee had. There were over 400 of us in total.

The calls were not admissable in court and required special permission from company management to pull and listen to them and we rarely had to do it. usually just telling them that all calls are recorded routinely and if you want us to we can pull it and listen again calmed their claims somewhat.

On the rare occasions when there was a strong dispute about the facts and what had been said with a customer, whether client or contractor claiming we had said something different, usually many months later, having the ability to pull and listen to calls was invaluable.

in every case the calls proved what we had said to be correct, and on being told this, only once (out of 4 disputes) did the customer want the actual mp3 of the call sent to them to hear again.

Once you told them we had in fact pulled and listened to the call again, most would then whine about how it was illegal to tape calls but drop their assertions.

a company is allowed to record it's employees calls for quality control, and as I believe someone else said, whether it's admissable in court or not isnt really the point, even if theyre not actually trying it on which most were, actually hearing the facts again in their own voice is generally enough to settle it for good.

If I had a large phone-based company I would definitely do this too, and it must be so much easier these days than the tape based systems or company back then

The IT guys used to hate us whenever we made them sift through miles of tape for one call and phrase

[wige]

Admissibility in court is not your only concern. In some areas, it is in fact illegal to make the recording in the first place without proper notification. Generally, this applies to the jurisdiction where the recording is made, but in the US, some states have laws that state recording calls originating within the state are a crime even if the call is to another state and is recorded in that other state.

How well that would stand up in court is questionable, but the statement that your calls will/may be recorded is extremely important.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by kevsta

a company is allowed to record it's employees calls for quality control, and as I believe someone else said, whether it's admissable in court or not isnt really the point, even if theyre not actually trying it on which most were, actually hearing the facts again in their own voice is generally enough to settle it for good.

If I had a large phone-based company I would definitely do this too, and it must be so much easier these days than the tape based systems or company back then

Fortunate for you and others that you're not offering legal advice to clients or co-workers.

1) What you believe to be acceptable is irrelevant to that which allowed by Law.

2) And, what you believe is, in fact, contrary to the Law of many jurisdictions.

3) As a general rule, illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible in a Court of Law.

4) Therefore, the usefulness of such evidence in an adversarial action is limited to your ability to use it to intimidate your opponent i